In what areas do conservatives and libertarians tend to agree?

[SteveA]

A lot of time is focused on disagreements between conservatives and libertarians but truthfully there have been many common views shared (at least before the advent of the neo-conservative). I thought it might be good to list many of the commonalities (for a change) to encourage conservatives and libertarians to hammer out some of the differences, as I believe when people really dig down, they'll find it's not very difficult at all to have a government under which both conservatives and libertarians can live together peacefully.

I see much of the conflict as simply arising from conservatives failing to see that many conservative social desires can be met via. private voluntary institutions/communities under a libertarian government. And libertarians tend to be overly critical and intolerant of some conservative social views but forget that many conservatives don't explicitly expect government to enforce their conservative values on others.

Anyway, I'll let someone else start the list and see how others view this.

[RickSp]

Traditional conservatives think that consenting adults should be free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as the transactions do not involve private matters such as sex, drugs or religion.

Liberals think that consenting adults should be to free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as the transactions do not commerce.

Libertarians think that consenting adults should be to free.

Neoconservatives think that you should shut up and not ask such questions and anyone who does weakens national security and should probably be in jail or shot.

As a libertarian I find that I agree about as often with liberals as I do traditional conservatives. In my experience very few conservatives "don't explicitly expect government to enforce their conservative values on others." To the contrary the vast majority seem to think that that is exactly what government is for.

Regarding foreign policy, most conservatives and liberals tend toward imperialism and nativism.

[Apeman81]

Conservatives and Liberals both believe that it is good and just to aid our fellow man.
The difference is in the approach.
The liberal tends toward giving the man a fish, so that he might eat,
The conservative tends toward teaching the man to fish, that he may feed himself.

More to follow

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: SteveA I see much of the conflict as simply arising from conservatives failing to see that many conservative social desires can be met via. private voluntary institutions/communities under a libertarian government.

That is the heart of the issue in my opinion.


Conservatives actually realize that private, voluntary institutions are so corrupted by the two party system, there is little hope of ever seeing another shining example of the private sector answering the need, such as the Better Business Bureau.


I think the days of such endeavours are gone in this country, because the special interest lobbyist have set the precedent that viods the whole concept of responsibility, or ethics in business in this country.


The Conservatives already have a voice in Washington, so they will not see the need to cooperate with Libertarians when they can just make pork barrel compromises to the Democrats to get what they want that won't pass the legislative proess on its own merit.


Traditions die hard for the most part, but particularly when the group being asked to compromise is already getting preferential treatment. There is just no incentive for them to come around to our position.

[SteveA]

I'm glad I didn't post my views as it's interesting to see slightly different takes from both of you.

Quote by: RickSp As a libertarian I find that I agree about as often with liberals as I do traditional conservatives. In my experience very few conservatives "don't explicitly expect government to enforce their conservative values on others." To the contrary the vast majority seem to think that that is exactly what government is for.

Sadly, that last comment does seem to be far too often true.

But for example, you have many socially conservative views don't you? If you ignored your stance stance on government, would you call your personal social views conservative or libertarian? I tend to consider you more along the lines of a traditional conservative (a.k.a. not neo-conservative).

Truely, from a political viewpoint, you're stances are libertarian but those views were part of a conservative upbringing correct?

I'm just guessing so please correct me if I'm mistaken. The real point I'm trying to make is (and I know you already feel this way) that there's truly little of conflict between conservative values and a libertarian government. And truly many conservatives (for example, Ronald Reagan) praised the merits of reducing government involvement in our lives.

As you've pointed out though, conservatives have drifted away from this and I'm hoping something like this thread can provide more encouragement for conservatives to see the value of a libertarian government.

Quote by: Apeman81 Conservatives and Liberals both believe that it is good and just to aid our fellow man. The difference is in the approach. The liberal tends toward giving the man a fish, so that he might eat, The conservative tends toward teaching the man to fish, that he may feed himself. More to follow

I thinking less of the differences between liberals and conservatives and instead libertarians and conservatives.

I think both conservatives and libertarians tend to prefer teaching to fish instead of simply giving fish.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Traditions die hard for the most part, but particularly when the group being asked to compromise is already getting preferential treatment. There is just no incentive for them to come around to our position.

There's a lot of truth in that. It may be the only way this trend will reverse is after it bites back. I've had more of a socially conservative upbringing and admit being saddened to see this happen. There's been a drift in conservative views on what the role of government should be. It feels like watching someone begin walking into a minefield after you've tried cautioning then against it. I guess we'll see what happens ... it would be nice to be outside the potential blast radius.

[tman_ndsu08]

The LP is dead. It never really was alive.

I think Libertarians should regroup and unite under the Republican badge and try to change the Reps views on cramming their moral gobbldygook agenda down peoples throats while keeping their common sense approach to reducing government spending and lowering taxes.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The LP is dead. It never really was alive. I think Libertarians should regroup and unite under the Republican badge and try to change the Reps views on cramming their moral gobbldygook agenda down peoples throats while keeping their common sense approach to reducing government spending and lowering taxes.

I think focusing on primary elections in both parties would be good. We've got libertarian variant from the left wing as well and if libertarians simply stick to party lines, then it's no different than how minorities are ignored by the Democratic party - you get taken for granted.

I've done some calculations before and would very very strongly recommend people voting in primary elections. It's amazing how much more influence selecting which candidate runs for office can make. In some states it's almost a given that one party will win ... register with that main party and vote in the primary for the most libertarian candidate that has a chance of winning. It can be worth 50 votes in the general election.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 The LP is dead. It never really was alive. I think Libertarians should regroup and unite under the Republican badge and try to change the Reps views on cramming their moral gobbldygook agenda down peoples throats while keeping their common sense approach to reducing government spending and lowering taxes.

There is NO WAY I am ever going to associate with those people, or affix their label to my person. Not going to happen. I would rather revolt, than to be seen dealing with the traitors that sold us up the river.

[RickSp]

Quote by: SteveA But for example, you have many socially conservative views don't you? If you ignored your stance stance on government, would you call your personal social views conservative or libertarian? I tend to consider you more along the lines of a traditional conservative (a.k.a. not neo-conservative). Truely, from a political viewpoint, you're stances are libertarian but those views were part of a conservative upbringing correct? I'm just guessing so please correct me if I'm mistaken. The real point I'm trying to make is (and I know you already feel this way) that there's truly little of conflict between conservative values and a libertarian government. And truly many conservatives (for example, Ronald Reagan) praised the merits of reducing government involvement in our lives.

I have virtually no "social conservative" views. I am a live and let live libertarian.

I grew up in the South during the civil rights movement. I have no interest in "traditional values", which when I was growing up reflected racial bigotry and religious intolerance. I have never thought of Reagan's goal of "reducing government involvement in our lives" as a particularly conservative view. The conservatives I know think that governement should get involved in the most intimate aspects of our lives. Their "traditional family values" don't reflect my family or my values.

[Cephus]

Quote by: RickSp Traditional conservatives think that consenting adults should be free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as the transactions do not involve private matters such as sex, drugs or religion.

That's not necessarily true. It's more a matter that traditional conservatives think that consenting adults should be free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as they take personal responsibility for the outcome of said transactions.

Liberals think that consenting adults should be to free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as the transactions do not commerce.

A lot of liberals think that consenting adults should be free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as they don't offend anyone in the process and if said transaction completely screws things up, don't worry, Big Government will take care of you from cradle to grave.

Libertarians think that consenting adults should be to free.

My only issue with Libertarianism on this point is that there are few, or usually no limitations of what they think consenting adults should be able to do. If you can get away with it, go for it. Do things that are anti-social. Do things that hurt others. It doesn't matter, and if you can avoid the consequences in some way, good for you.

Neoconservatives think that you should shut up and not ask such questions and anyone who does weakens national security and should probably be in jail or shot.

Neocons are just idiots. Period.

[shield772]

http://www.rlc.org/

A group of Republican Libertarians

[Sandy]

Too many people believe that our moral values are the responsibility of our federal government. Don’t any of you remember the horrors of Prohibition? The banning of alcohol merely allowed a criminal cartel of bootlegging to grow into a massive mess of government interference. The underground criminals went from alcohol and are now into drugs. We allowed the government to develop a terrible power source where all Americans were being observed and watched for illegal actions.

This was step one into a final assault on American choices and habits. Abortions were next on the list and when the majority of states declared abortions illegal it started a bloodbath of illegal procedures from coast to coast.

Politically, America was drawn into the Second World War, Korea and finally Vietnam. This caused a terrible fear among all of us who felt that our days were numbered and our futures totally unsure. Among millions of Americans the fear was so great that it didn’t matter if we became pregnant or how we handled the possibility. America was a mess emotionally and nobody gave a damn about anything. Culturally our kids fell apart and with future goals in question, they did whatever they wanted regardless of the results.

Seems as if these reckless young adults raised their kids in the same way. Even with the breakout of AIDs and a list of new sexually transmitted diseases, it was a totally open sexual revolution. The Bible belt looked to the Federal Government to do something to stop the number of abortions being done since Roe v Wade was made into law. Every time the feds get involved, there is an element of corruption that goes completely out of control.

What would it take in the American mind to handle ones own social cultural problems without “BIG DADDY” having the last word? It is now so out of control that the majority of the GOP has joined up as the “Conservatives” determined to give the Federal Government the authority to issue laws on all Americans on how to live their own lives. The final step in this assault was Bush’s desire to be the final decision maker on when people should die.

Thank you Conservatives, you have treated American individual choices like chopped liver. In my correspondence with many of you, it seems as if you are ill-equipped to make your own decisions. You look at other Americans as somehow inferior as they want their choices left, either to their own family decisions or at best given to the individual states. What the hell is wrong with you? Did you learn nothing from your years in school, or at the family gatherings that discussed your choices? Did your churches issue laws that were so weak, they never took within your own brains?

I will fight this federal take over of our personal lives with every ounce of my energy. I will never turn over a single decision to a bunch of corrupt hypocrites who have turned their backs on their own constituents for the power of the government.

Compare them with the LP? Hell, the LP has no clue what the Amendments to the Constitution have to say. They have chosen criminal leaders who are always tap dancing on the lip of being arrested for all kinds of problems.

We have little left in the way of ethical legislation. The problem is not with the labels issued to any elected official but the lack of moral ethics that they represent. Believing that a Conservative Christian representative is 2 cents better than the most liberal house member needs to take a look at how both of these men/women voted.

Do any of you know what it is you want from your elected officials? I know the Conservatives want abortions prohibited and they will live with anything that comes along. We are in the front row seats of a tremendous wave of corrupt exposure. Abramoff will sing like a bird to save his own ass from a life sentence. He will expose our House and Senate members into those who he bought off and those who refused his money. Before you all get into a nervous breakdown, please learn that lobbying is legal.

LOBBYING IS LEGAL! But buying an elected official is not! It will be up to us, the voters, to research the actions of our own House Members. The Federal Government might expose those who were paid to pass a bill, sign on to another bill or issue expensive federal contracts to a particular state. These are illegal! I will tell you right now, that Bush will do everything in his power to protect his Conservative Congress. Somehow the exposure of these people will be considered a danger to American security.

I’ve been on this forum a while and have seen the call to help from the federal government demanded on just about every problem discussed. For every law you demand to protect you from your fears, you will lose your rights on other actions.

I cannot find a single political party in America today that isn’t up to its ass in federal laws. Everybody wants laws to control others (never themselves) and our government will be a perfect police state in the next 10 years.

[tman_ndsu08]

I wouldn't have a problem with Libertarians regrouping under the Democrat badge and then trying to change their views on government spending and taxes.

I just think it would be easier to change Reps views on mandated morality.

[bentodd]

Quote by: Cephus That's not necessarily true. It's more a matter that traditional conservatives think that consenting adults should be free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as they take personal responsibility for the outcome of said transactions. A lot of liberals think that consenting adults should be free to engage in non-violent transactions so long as they don't offend anyone in the process and if said transaction completely screws things up, don't worry, Big Government will take care of you from cradle to grave. My only issue with Libertarianism on this point is that there are few, or usually no limitations of what they think consenting adults should be able to do. If you can get away with it, go for it. Do things that are anti-social. Do things that hurt others. It doesn't matter, and if you can avoid the consequences in some way, good for you. Neocons are just idiots. Period.

You are sadly mistaken. Libertarians do not advocate letting people do things that hurt others. The whole point of a Libertarian society is that with out a drug war etc. Violent crime would be drasticly reduced and police could concentrate on real crime such as Murder, rape, assult, fraud etc.

Join the Libertarian Party for FREE www.lp.org click on JOIN US

By the way whoever said the LP was dead probablt did not realize that we are winning more and more races. from 2001-2005 elected Libertarians rose from under 300 to over 600. Plus we are funding local candidates for 2006. Watch the LP by the end of 2006 there will be multiple Libertarians elected to state house of representarives

Ben Todd
Chairman, Barton Vermont Libertarian Party

[Zealot]

Quote by: bentodd You are sadly mistaken. Libertarians do not advocate letting people do things that hurt others. The whole point of a Libertarian society is that with out a drug war etc. Violent crime would be drasticly reduced and police could concentrate on real crime such as Murder, rape, assult, fraud etc. Join the Libertarian Party for FREE www.lp.org click on JOIN US By the way whoever said the LP was dead probablt did not realize that we are winning more and more races. from 2001-2005 elected Libertarians rose from under 300 to over 600. Plus we are funding local candidates for 2006. Watch the LP by the end of 2006 there will be multiple Libertarians elected to state house of representarives Ben Todd Chairman, Barton Vermont Libertarian Party

The Libertarians do not advocate much of anything. They are just watered down Democrats!

[Clarence]

Quote by: Zealot The Libertarians do not advocate much of anything. They are just watered down Democrats!

Is this a bad thing? Maybe they could run against some watered down repubs so they can all cool off for a minute and think about what they're doing. Seems like people are acting so extreme that the whole world has entered a chain reaction a chemical reaction like fire what we need is some water. You know what I mean Z? Get back to what matters. Environment and peacful living. Come what may, I'll be tending my children. To protect the future, we need something new yet timeless. I don't know if it's the Libertarians we're looking for. But something. I find it amusing that libertarians are perhaps trying to recruit neo-con votes. or maybe just moderate republicans.

[underbear1]

Conservatives and libertarians agree that Harriet Miers didn't belong on the Supreme Court, and that Bush has never seen a spending bill he didn't like.There was also agreement that Michael Brown was totally incompetent in Katrina, and the country was decieved with bad intelligence, into going needlessly into Iraq.I think you'll find agreement that once in Iraq we did a pretty lousey job for a year with too few troops, which has caused the current situation in Iraq to be that much more difficult..Libertarians and Conservatives also agree getting Abramoff money, is much easier than getting rid of Abramoff money.

[bentodd]

Quote by: Zealot The Libertarians do not advocate much of anything. They are just watered down Democrats!

Libertarians are not watered down democrats. Compare the Libertarian party to any other political party. Democrats and Republicans are both moderate parties that have extreme wings. The Greens are extreme Liberals. The constitution party is mostly extreme conservatives. The Libertarian party takes votes from Republicans because we are fiscally conservative and we support lowering taxes, eliminating welfare programs in favor of private charities. Private insurance instead of state medicaid. We defend the second ammendment, and school choice.

Then we are socially Liberal. We support ending the war on drugs. We would like to see marriage removed from state control and back in the hands of the churches that started it. We fight against the UN-Patriotic act. We defend free speach, and support a noninterventionalist forign policy. Not isolationist.

So you see Libertarians are the only party that supports true personal freedom and responsibility. Unlike the other parties who support freedom on only some issues.

The thing that I ask voters when the oppose me on an issue. "do you agree with any other party on every issue" the answer is always no. The fact is if people took the time they would find that the relley do agree with libertarians on more issues then they do with the Reps and dems

Ben Todd