Am I the only libertarian that hates conservatives more than liberals?

I find that the liberals agenda of political correctness, restriction of corporations and desire for everyone to have free healthcare to be sympathetic. Though I don't really agree with their conclusions as I find that it's not very sustainable. I do think it's noble and kind of them to think about others. I won't really deny that conservatives can also be kind and noble, I think that their goals are quite obviously more destructive. As many conservatives would rather tax the middle or poorer classes under the misguided belief that they would create jobs. (Which they don't, supply and demand do) Rather than to have lower taxes for everyone (Although I am not against healthcare).

That and many liberals seem to be much more well educated than conservatives. Even the unintelligent liberals are more enlightened about the plights of others that conservatives are. However most libertarians are more concerned with throwing away civil liberties in exchange for making the market more "No taxes for anyone" vs. the current arch-conservative "Tax everyone but the super rich". Very much like How The World Works.

Or maybe I'm just a liberal in denial. Who knows.

Honestly, both liberals and conservatives have their fair share of idiots. Yet there are some in both camps that have good ideas. In the end, one can't make blanket statements like that.

Maybe you're a liberal libertarian? Who knows.

But you might possibly be the only one who hates conservatives more or might not. Liberals and Libertarians do have some common points of interest because both liberals and libertarians seem to agree on social issues such as gay rights and all; they're both concerned about protecting civil rights. It just so happens they differ on how they think economics affects such thing. And given the concern for civil rights, liberals do generally want to reach out and protect the community. (As in the ones that clearly can't take care of themselves under the current situation.)

Plus, yeah, liberals have to be more educated. We use facts in self defense these days. Personally, I find that the libertarian line about "no taxes for anyone" would tank us almost immediately because we need money to maintain roads and public schools. And that the idea of people taking care of that locally is laughable because some communities are too poor to actually do that.

edited 31st Oct '11 2:10:44 AM by AceofSpades

You might be, but you shouldn't be.

The problem is that most Big-L Libertarians have a very myopic view of liberty and freedom. It's viewed as strictly freedom from government...especially Federal governments. Which doesn't make that much sense to me, because in my mind smaller governments tend to be worse.

What you see on the modern left, is generally a goal on maximizing individual liberty for everybody, or at least for as many people as possible. That's key. Again, as opposed to Libertarianism which tends to look to create a power vacuum which can then be exploited, and that exploitation is freedom. Yeah but no.

Things such as accessible-post secondary education, single-payer healthcare, and a strong social safety net are ways in which we actually increase individual liberty, by allowing people the opportunity to succeed, without making the cost for failure unrecoverable. As well, just in general creating economic environments in which more people can succeed at ALL levels, again, increases individual liberty.

It's also key to while not entirely, but to put the fingers on the scale a bit to correct power imbalances, ideally.

So all this is just a bit on why to be honest, modern progressive theory is better than Libertarianism in terms of seeking individual liberty.

It is not a matter of "better." It is about similarities and differences between ideologies.

Anyway, I think the 2-D political compass ultimately has many of the same problems as the 1-D spectrum it's supposed to replace. It makes different subjects share axes, which can misrepresent variation in views. If I had to attach a label to my views, it would be primarily liberal, with a slight libertarian bent. However, my views on gender issues (and to a lesser extent racial ones) are too significantly different from mainstream liberalism to compromise on, and to some extent I also see some divergence on torture and on some environmental issues.

That said, it is still a slight improvement, and better represents the ways left-libertarians like Bill Maher can see common ground with right-libertarians like Ron Paul.

@OP,

No, no you are not.

~waits for Savage~

I can't agree with Mark's statements. I haven't heard a god idea out of a neocon since Reagan's eil empire policy.

Erock, thats because Regan was the first neo-con

Err, no. It's more complex then that. He was the first neocon Preisdent.

And the evil empire policy wasn't even Republican in origin. It was Cold Warrior Democrats that opposed detente, so I can't even fully give neocons that.

Doesn't matter. Regardless of what party they belonged to, it was a neoconservative policy. Just as those Oakland cupcake protests show that racial discrimination isn't owned by one party - in the popular consciousness, ex-Dixiecrat Republicans in the '60s and '70s. Philosophy is philosophy, and party lines only confuse the issue.

Bill Maher is inclined toward the libertarian? Gah, I thought libertarians who weren't Truthers had escaped elitism, not to mention caustic douchebaggery. My mistake.

edited 31st Oct '11 5:58:04 AM by DomaDoma

Well, left-libertarians (not necessarily socialist) certainly hate reverse wealth distribution and puritanical authoritarianism way more than they hate handouts for the Average Joe and welfare.

edited 31st Oct '11 6:46:22 AM by SavageHeathen

I can accept that. (Though the former is not a political issue - the kind of Democrats and Republicans who go to caucuses both despise it - so much as an incumbents' issue.) I can't accept Bill Maher. That guy's an asshole.

edited 31st Oct '11 6:48:50 AM by DomaDoma

I kinda dislike Lefties and Righties for different reasons; depending on the issue, I'll like one side less than the other.

I don't consider myself a Left-libertarian (though I sympathise with many of their basic ideals), but conservos bitching about folk taking welfare/benefits to survive, whilst ignoring/downplaying/bigging-up the welfare queens in government and the corporate world, are a point of irritation for me.

edited 31st Oct '11 9:40:05 AM by MRDA1981

I am a very big Robert A Heinlein fan, and he makes some very persuasive arguments for libertarianism in his later works, enough that I was strongly inclined toward that philosophy for a while. Only problem is that it falls flat in the face of the reality of this world, in which we have far too many people and far too much going on to make it a practical means of governing. It works only on a small scale and with people dedicated to its principles — and willing to instantly and mercilessly eliminate those who are not.

I like many aspects of the philosophy, such as a tendency towards freedom of religion (or lack thereof), minding one's own business on social mores, and a general sense of individual purpose. The trouble is that modern conservatism embodies exactly none of those principles.

Honestly, I don't think that Libertarianism is overly excited with mega-business, either — the impulse towards tyranny is a factor of size, not simply whether it's Business vs. Government.

edited 31st Oct '11 9:27:05 AM by Fighteer

Fighteer, if you're merciless towards people with different political views, you are by no stretch a libertarian. You're not even an Objectivist. If you're in favor of more localized variance in governance on the other hand... yeah, that's a libertarian tenet.

Well, Lazarus Long never had any qualms about shooting someone who got up in his business and refused to take a hint. One of Heinlein's novels has a man executed on the spot for line jumping. Libertarians seem to take trespassing seriously.

Heinlein's flavor of libertarianism was edging pretty strongly on junta. Some of his ideas - a house of Congress dedicated to repealing laws being first among them - are pretty sweet, but yeah, there's a reason the military isn't in charge of many countries capable of electing more than one party.

Starship Troopers was not a Libertarian novel. You have to remember that his political philosophy evolved quite a bit over the course of his writing — compare Podkayne of Mars to Time Enough for Love.

He never did stop being misogynist as all hell, though, regardless of the differences in the sex lives he portrays. Sigh.

Er? I thought he was incredibly respectful, almost reverential in fact, toward his female characters. They're among the strongest heroines in fiction that aren't actively trying out for the "mistaken for a man" club.

He puts 'em on a pedestal, to be sure, but I don't remember personality or non-objectification in a one of them. Especially the love interest in Double Star. God, she made '50s PSAs look like they portrayed well-rounded women.

It depends on what type of conservative: paleo, theo, or neo. Chart BPM uses the best system. Also, Individualism and Paleolibertarianism are the two kinds of libertarians.

Kratos — (Greek for "force") Measuring the person's perceived need to use force to keep the social system functioning.

Arche — (Greek for "leader") Measuring the person's attitude toward social hierarchy.

Anyone who tends to oppose the use of force to maintain social cohesion is "akratic," while someone who tends to support it is "kratic." A person who tends to be accepting of existing social hierarchies and traditions is "archic" and someone who tends to dislike those social patterns is "anarchic."

This results in eight positions, which Mitchell associates with common American political labels for convenience:

Theoconservative (Archic with indifference to Kratos) Supports social traditions but their support for government action varies depending on whether a policy supports or opposes the informal structure of society.

Neoconservative (Archic and Kratic) Generally supportive of social heirarchies and believes that strong policy is often necessary to maintain stability and promote growth.

Communitarian (Kratic with indifference to Arche) Supports a strong government to direct activity, but only cares about cultural matters to the extent that they impact the extent to which society can pursue big projects.

Progressive (Kratic and Anarchic) Supports a strong government to direct activity, but is critical of social conventions that may hold people back from their full potential.

Radical (Anarchic with indifference to Kratos) Sharply critical of any social mores that fail to treat people equally, and only cares about government policy to the extent that it reinforces or challenges stale traditions.

Individualist (Anarchic and Akratic) Critical of social mores that fail to treat people equally, and also distrustful of policy that forces people to live a certain way against their will.

Paleolibertarian (Akratic and indifferent to Arche) Deeply distrustful of policy that keeps people from choosing their own way in life, and only cares about morals and traditions to the extent that they become a focus of the legal system.

Paleoconservative (Akratic and Archic) Distrustful of policy that keeps people from choosing their own way in life, but very supportive of the informal rules and traditions that undergird society.

Topic may be drifting slightly? (Since Fighteer is a mod I trust his judgement over mine, but a discussion of Robert A Heilein belongs in the Literature forum rather than this thread, strictly speaking...)

On topic, I really don't see how Libertarians could possibly be more inclined to support conservatives than liberals. They might not agree with liberals entirely, especially as you slide up the scale towards communism (since that means big government, obviously) but on social issues, libertarians and conservatives are almost never aligned, but liberals often support similar social freedoms as libetarians.

Yeah, the Heinlein derail should go in its own thread. My apologies. And I trust secretist to insert a long and essentially pointless treatise on all the various -ives and -isms.

edited 31st Oct '11 11:25:40 AM by Fighteer