Libertarianism as a "hybrid" of conservatism and liberalism

Miscellaneous General
1

On another forum I’ve been debating with some people, one of which is a libertarian…Sort of. I had a little debate about foreign policy with him (he took the whole “WW2 was good” side), but that is another story.

Basically, he defined libertarianism as the following:

I am a hybrid of liberal and conservative and also a major valuer of freedom, so I will tell you how I think both political extremes suck. The original definition of “liberal” had to do with wanting change, and that change usually had to do with increased liberties and rights. However, what we have today is a new “liberal” perspective. “Liberals” now want to seriously limit economic freedom and have the government control way too much about business. That is not freedom. Conservatives want to greatly limit individual liberties, such as the right to smoke pot, marry a person of one’s own gender, and abort one’s own cell blobs that have not developed consciousness and therefore have not become human. Neither extreme sufficiently values freedom. Libertarians greatly value freedom, for people of their own nations. However, they believe in ignoring the levels of freedom of people in other nations. Barack Obama is against every one of those types of freedom, except maybe abortion. Most other Democrats are too.

I made a contrasting post, saying that I don’t think libertarianism is a hybrid/middle ground, but rather a separate philosophy. He replied with:

That is not true. 100% pure libertarians are liberal to the extreme on issues involving civil liberties and foreign policy while conservative to the extreme on issues of economics and social programs.

Then another forum member came in, agreeing:

lib·er·tar·i·an (lbr-târ-n)
n.

  1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

That is exactly what a hybrid of liberalism and conservatism is.

What do you guys think? I’m not sure how to respond to them.

2

They are not libertarians. They are liberal moderates. Minarchists.

Kinsella’s style is very dry, but that article is pretty clear on what a libertarian is. Your friends do not seem to understand how freedom is related to a conception of property rights, and so, like constitutionalists and other liberals, talk about freedom as some nebulous, poorly defined concept.

If they support the use of force against people exercising any of their rights, or they support the minimal state, or if they support the notion of a social contract (Constitution), then they are not libertarians. They are just petit statists. Classic liberals at best (although based on what I read, they don’t seem to understand liberalism as a philosophy, just an ideology).

3

it strikes me as word games, people saying that
“this concept has some particular value at its core”, and" that concept has its own central core value",

so when they see some new set of values, they say, " ive seen bits of it before, ..oh, its part this and part that"

whats the point?

and LS is correct 100%

4

I replied, but he (let’s call him Person A) hasn’t replied yet. However, the random other user (Person B) replied with an image of the political compass (Libertarianism top right, right-wing bottom right, left-wing top left, populism/totalitarianism bottom left) and added “Libertarianism isn’t a hybrid? ”

I really can’t believe he replied with that.

5

really libertarianism is not on the politics chart since it is the abolition of politics.

6

I was once like Person A. I thought Libertarianism was a political party. Just invite him to read Rothbard or Block. Show him some resources.

The Libertarian Party, at best, are just Constitutionalists (at least the ones I’ve bumped into), or petite statist, as one guy mentioned.

7

Still no reply, but an actual friend of mine came into the thread saying that unrestricted capitalism is bad (the topic has changed a bit). I told him that we’ve never actually had unrestricted capitalism, so he told me this:

I then told him that he has capitalism confused with corporatism/neo-mercantilism.

8

Does he even understand that monopoly and copyright are created by the state?

9

Apparently not. He gave me a definition of capitalism:

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

When those corporations aren’t regulated, and are allowed to run rampant, It fits the definition of unrestricted capitalism.

I then reiterated my point about corporatism:

Or, you know, when they’re effectively bought-out by the state. State-Capitalism…Corporatism…Get it?

Person C came in:

It’s never happened because this country is centre-left. Unrestricted capitalism is what they want, not what’s going to happen. And FYI, it did happen once, in the late 90s. The internet market grew too fast and was too international for the lawmakers to keep up with it and restrict it. It causes huge amounts of wealth to be accumulated very quickly, then like the liberals predicted, it fell apart. It was called The Bubble.

So I gave him a brief history lesson. Yes, I mean very brief.

Actually the dot-com boom/bubble, like any and all booms/bubbles, was caused by the Federal Reserve. Read some Rothbard for history’s sake.

I’m getting a little uninterested in debating economics with these people and such with them, not because it’s my weak point, but honestly, it’s been beaten to death over and over and over. That, and it’s not the original topic of the thread.

10

People who think they know what capitalism is, and how history has played out, are very difficult to discuss with.

You have to be very patient, and emotionally detach from the discussion. If you get frustrated, it’s game over. They win.

There are a lot of people you can win over, but they aren’t on online political message boards.

11

Aaand more progress.

Person A:

Blueline, it’s very simple. Libertarians are hybrids because they are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Name an issue, any issue, and I will tell you whether pure libertarians are liberal or conservative on it.

Me:

No. Libertarians are libertarian on some issues and even more libertarian on others. That is libertarianism. Conservatives and liberals need not apply.

My friend (Person D, the one who gave me the capitalism definition):

Even if it was caused by the Federal Reserve, it has to act within regulations. Without such regulations, it was allowed to boom. The law-makers didn’t touch it, and as you say the Federal Reserve did its thing and voila. Boom. No matter how you look at it, it was still due to an unrestricted part of a capital system.

Edit - LS, of course. I’m just holding my own at this point until I can quietly exit the debate :slight_smile:

12

Which forum is this on..?

13

Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty

Left and Right: Forty years later

What are libertarians? Simple. Extreme leftists in the sense of old order Conservatism on the right which welcomes nationalism, paternalism, chauvinism, elitism, messianic coercion, jingoism, and the hang man state.

Quote from Rothbard:

‘Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the “left” of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means… Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc.’

14

dreamviews.com/community. It’s a dreaming/lucid dreaming forum that a friend (actually the same one debating me about how unrestricted capitalism is bad) showed me a few years ago. It has an “extended discussion” area where members can discuss philosophy, economics, politics, you name it.

Anyway, Person A replied to me:

Supporting high level capitalism is not conservative? Supporting gay marriage rights is not liberal? Supporting abortion rights is not liberal? Opposing the welfare system is not conservative? Supporting gun rights is not conservative? Opposing prayer in public schools is not liberal? Uh, wrong.

Then Person D (my friend) replied:

Taking a look at it now, I think what Blueline is trying to say is in disagreement with “2 Party Categorizing.” Meaning, rather than simply tossing things to either Conservative or Liberal, that things can be categorized more broadly. That something that is a conservative ideal, can ALSO a libertarian ideal, and can ALSO be a Green ideal. So that when you speak in reference to that party, it takes on that category. Basically I think Blueline is trying to say that things aren’t simply Black/White, or in this case Red/Blue.

However, to Blueline, UM isn’t trying to explain it party by party, but term by term. Liberal and Conservative are descriptive terms, not simply party names. They do apply to a stance on issues. Right is conservative, and Left is Liberal. Which is why socialists, communists, libertarians, green, etc. can be described as Liberal or Conservative on this issue or that issue and can have a liberal or conservative stance.

15

Now I have to go tweak some noses.

16

I see you signed up. Welcome to the party :slight_smile:

For reference:

Extended Discussion > Liberal vs. Conservative Ideology

17

You should remind him that there are no gay rights, or straight rights. Gun rights are property rights. Abortion rights are property rights. Opposing welfare is supporting the same property rights that allow for abortion, for gay rights, for gun rights.

The rights are all derived from self-ownership.

18

WHO CARES?

I wouldn’t comment on this topic, I usually avoid these sorts of discussions, but this has to be the biggest non issue ever. Look, if your friend, opponent or whatever wants to set up a spectrum defined the way he wants and put libertarianism in the middle, there’s a good chance he can do so with some validity. On the other hand, you can set up a spectrum in such a way that libertarianism can appear anywhere depending on the extremes you choose and the criteria that you’re using.

The amount of semantic topics that appear on these fora are staggering.

19

I totally agree with the Rothbard quote, it explains a lot about how some people go from socialism to free market ideas. I was reading of new liberty, it’s so simple how you can wrap up all these property rights, and civil rights into ownership of self.

20

Not everyone is as awesome/wise/positive-descriptive-word-here as you, Giles. Just trying to feel out my arguments considering I’m new-ish. Learning from experience = [Y]