Anyone else disturbed by this new mingling of libertarian and conservative thought? This rant comes from some of the comments on the internet from libertarian claimed topics. I feel like either two things may be happening:
A) Due to being unsatisfied by the conservative doctrine, conservatives are becoming slightly more fiscal, which is bringing them torwards mingling with libertarians.
B) Some of this is rubbing off on libertarians (Normally minarchists or lighter libertarians, doesn’t seem to heavy with anarchists) specifically in their attitudes. It’s almost as if the opposition to liberal democrat and leftist political correctness is letting conservative political correctness rub off on libertarians. For example, I’m seeing more distrust and phobia towards Islam or Muslims, as if all Muslims were politically correct or liberals. It as if Muslim=democrat now adays. This is not a good thing. If we want libertarianism to grow, we have to be open to everyone. Besides, much of the anti-Muslim attitude is what sends Muslims to the liberal side of things, why not just redirect it to libertarianism?
Will this mingling continue? Are we going to see some mass conversions to libertarianism or to conservatism? What I’m really interested in is what will happen if the next president is conservative, how attitudes will change.
I have noticed the same thing, except that I do not consider it mingling of the two groups. I consider it the co-opting of libertarian ideals into the conservative/Right narrative. This is how they can “win” the votes of moderate and/or independent voters.
That’s taken out of context. Hoppe doesn’t have a problem with homosexuals and others who elect to pursue an alternative lifetstyle per se, he’s just making the comment that it wouldn’t be in the best interest of some communities to have people preaching these lifestyles.
For example, let us suppose that I run a factory and I notice this one fellow keeps trying to push the other workers to unionize. As the employer I have little incentive to keep this worker around and give him a chance to indoctirinate the rest of them, so I’ll fire him. Alternatively, say there is a gated community of Catholics and they receive an applicant who is a known die-hard athiest. This is the type of person who purposefully brings up his belief and tries to force people to convert with his continual verbal assaults. Surely you wouldn’t want someone like that in the community and the applicant would be turned down. If he were an athiest who kept to himself as far as that aspect of his life went, that’d be fine to the community most likely, but they couldn’t afford a fanatic.
^Which is why I tend be more tolerant/sympathetic of leftists. I think a lot of them have the same intentions, just different methods, ideas or are misguided. Plus I have a few close leftist friends, so there’s my bias.
Doesn’t calling for physically separating and expelling communists and democrats from society sound like bigotry (as well as a violation of the NAP)? Like how some would call for expelling Mexicans, blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc. One of the things I like about libertarians is that they’ll tolerate (though not necessarily approve of) anyone except aggressors. And I wonder where Hoppe finds evidence for his claim that homosexuals are incompatible with a family-centered community.
^To coase:It’s not important as important. There were always be bigots anywhere, but aggression is different. I’m much more okay for a conservative telling me “I hate your guts, but go ahead and build that mosque there” then for the conservative to say “I hate your guts, we should deport your ass”. However calling for physical separation is not something I like either, but if he’s not calling for force, I’m okay with it. I just lose a little respect for him.
To WillBlake: Libertarians are not conservatives. The entire spectrum of libertarianism (from minarchists, to syndicalists, to primitivists and voluntaryists), to a certain extent is based on the non agression principle or individual liberty. Can you label Rothbard, Tucker and Chomsky “conservative”? No, they don’t base their beliefs on the past, rather on freedom.
Chomsky calls himself a conservative because he bases his views off of Smith, Hume, and enlightenment thinkers, rather than Marx and Trotsky.
the central policy of the Reagan Administration - which was supposed to be conservative - was to build up a powerful state. The state grew in power more under Reagan than in any peacetime period, even if you just measure it by state expenditures… There was a commitment under the Reagan Administration to protect this more powerful state from the public… that means the creation of a powerful central state immune from public inspection. Or take the increased efforts at censorship and other forms of control. All of these are called “conservatism,” but they’re the very opposite of conservatism. Whatever the term means, it involves a concern for Enlightenment values of individual rights and freedoms against powerful external authorities such as the state, a dominant Church, and so on. That kind of conservatism no one even remembers anymore.
Hoppe doesn’t have a problem with homosexuals and others who elect to pursue an alternative lifetstyle per se, he’s just making the comment that it wouldn’t be in the best interest of some communities to have people preaching these lifestyles.
Except that the statement about gays is obtuse. There is nothing about the homosexual lifestyle - which is not really a lifestyle so much as a different choise about where to stick one’s body parts - that is incompatible with a community dedicated to families. If someone does nto fit in a family style community, fair enough, but this has nothing to do with their sexual inclinations. And speaking as a father of two (soon to be three), I can say that if I lived in a family covenant community, I would love have childless gay couples around. They’re called babysitters.