Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

That's all it is. We're going in circles.

 

Then ask someone whose good pleasure it is to answer idiotic questions.

 

I will give Goldwater props for keen insight into the nature of the modern American conservative. Some have credited him with being the father of the modern American conservative movement.

Some Goldwater quotes:

“The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take into account of the whole man, while Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is in part, an economic, an animal creature; but he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand, — in the name of concern for “human beings” — regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society.”​

And this one that embodies most of what I consider those points in the poll for this thread:

“Let me remind you a conservative is one who fights to expand individual liberty and resist the accumulation of power by those who claim they know best.”​

For what embodies the modern American liberal but a presumption of superior morality and integrity, a very real belief that they are better people than those who aren't them? And their perception of their 'more pure' moral center entitles them to dictate to everybody else how they must think, believe, speak, behave, live their lives and damn to hell (or socioeconomic ruin) any who dare to disobey them? Goldwater clearly saw that in modern liberalism and rejected it wholeheartedly.

So yes, Goldwater was pretty much a modern American conservative.

Buckley also held and promoted many conservative views but I do not believe he was a conservative. He too often opposed reasonable civil rights even as he defended McCarthyism. It was not that he opposed communism and subversive influences in our society and government, but that he justified the cruel and destructive witch hunts McCarthyism employed. Perhaps in his older age, he repented of all that. But I see a person with such views as more neocon authoritarian and/or leftist dictator than true libertarian, i.e. modern American conservative.

 

wrong thread. Sorry

 

I guess you could call me a grumpy old man. My values are...

get out of my wallet!
get out of my house!
get out of my life!
Get off my lawn!

 

Well it would depend on context of course, but assuming you are referring to mostly busybodies and government, that wouldn't be incompatible with conservatism/libertarianism.

 

Libertarians don't care about national borders, which means they don't care about locks on doors.

 

Libertarians (big "L") indeed are very close to being anarchists in that regard. But libertarians (small "L") are very strong on individual liberty, the right to one's own property and space, the right to defend oneself, one's loved ones, neighbors, community, etc. The libertarians/classical liberals strongly believe in culture, language, borders, and the ability of a country to defend these. The two are very different animals.

 

The small l types have a problem then. That small l stuff just means there is something wrong with their ideology, but are willing to overlook it.

As a grumpy old man, I'm tired of the lot of them. The big L Libertarians who have a huge hole in their ideology, and the small l libertarians who realize that property rights extend to groups as well as individuals.

 

The problem with that Goldwater quote is that it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what "conservatives" have actually been doing during the last three decades.

It was the Bush/Cheney regime that crapped all over the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to PRIVACY and DUE PROCESS under the Law of the Land. Worth noting that not a single "conservative" raised their voices in protest of the heinous vandalism of our individual rights.

And amongst the electorate at large it was the "conservatives" that DENIED that gays had the individual right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

As far as the "conservative" GOP goes they have been violating the individual right to vote with odious voter suppression laws all around our nation in their desperation to hang onto power that they no longer deserve because they do NOT represent We the People.

So what Goldwater said has been turned ASSBACKWARDS by what passes for "conservatives" today. I would go so far as to say that someone like myself is a conservative per Goldwater's description above but I want nothing whatsoever to do with those who call themselves "conservatives" today because they are opposed to everything I believe in when it comes to expanding individual liberty and fighting the accumulation of power.

 

I have no idea what you mean. Small "L" libertarians, i.e. classical liberals, certainly believe in social contract in which property can be shared for mutual benefit. But personal property is sacred. The large "L" Libertarians get some things right, but would use the government to force everyone to accept the society THEY see is ideal and in that regard, it makes them as authoritarian as the worst of the progressives/statists/leftists/liberals.

 

there is no social contract in libertarianism. That's some commie garbage.

 

License can mean many things you know. You weren't clear.

 

I'm still interested in your stance of gay marriage. So it seems like you don't think that gay people should have been so bothered about their relationships being recognised by that state. That was what I thought. Why do you think they wanted this? It always seemed to me that the state wasn't preventing them from having a same sex commitment ceremony in front of their family and friends and they would have the same legal rights as married men and women via a civil union.

 

no you couldn't have gotten it more wrong. I don't think it's the state's business to recognize it anybody's relationship. As in every marraige that exists. Regardless of the sex of the couple.

It was preventing them from being equal.

The state should either be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or forced not to recognize any. I'm a libertarian I don't think states rights Trump individual rights.

 

Well hundreds of thousand of gay couples across the globe seem to think that state recognition is more meaningful than you do, considering that they evidently held off from committing themselves to each other in front of their family and friends until same sex marriage was law.

Equal in rights?

Which is the case in the US now, right?

 

yeah hundreds of millions of straight couples do to. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't mean it's right.

good lord it's like I'm talking to a brick f****** wall. This isn't about same-sex couples.

Yes.

I stated two things that contradict one another they both can't be right at the same time.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. 1st there is no liberty without self control and I have yet to meet a leftist to whom the very idea of self control. economic or otherwise, was not anathema. Gay marriage is not an issue of liberty it is about compulsory acceptance of immorality. You cannot expand liberty sorry. Liberty like love either is or is not. Liberty cannot exist without self discipline.

2nd I object strenuously to the notion that liberty is tied up in the simplistic phrase "being who and what I am". The minute you define who you are in terms of what you do you've made your self a slave and sadly reduced your status to that of an amoeba.

 

It's same sex couples that I'm talking about. They held off from committing themselves to each other in front of their family and friends until same sex marriage was law. That just seems odd to me.

What rights did they not have that straight couples had?

I mean that it's the case that US states are forced to recognize same-sex marriages. At least that's my understanding.

 

Why?

Rights granted through marraige.

No that's States being stubborn. They could just not recognize Marriage at all.

 

Well I was hoping to get some insight into why they waited. Perhaps you are as clueless as I am.

What rights? Civil Unions are equivalent.

 

Well we have different understandings of both libertarianism and social contract then. Do have a pleasant day.

 

To be sure; and anyone with a lick of sense understands that its meaning in "driver's license" doesn't fit what I said.

That I wasn't clear to you is no concern of mine.

 

Why they waited until it was legal for them to get married?

Marraige is equal.

 

Yes. They could've done as you did and just commit themselves to each other, either with or without family and friends present at a commitment ceremony.

Equal to what?