I didn't write that "commies and conservatives are the same"

(*)abortion, marriage, drugs to name 3

*I disagree with labelling these as "conservative", they are more appropriately labelled Republican, but I'm answering your question.  Queevox had it pretty pot on.  Repubs and Dems are authoritarians who aspire to an ever greater and powerful federal government.

Your responses are full of strawmen.

Abortion: you and I may agree that abortion is murder, but obviously there are more people in this country that do not agree on it or at least think it is not the place for government intervention.  Again, authoritarian - regardless if you think it's righteous... and isn't that EXACTLY what the article was talking about?

Marriage: Republicans are seeking to maintain a government definition of marriage as between a man and woman, which is counter to the majority of American's views.  Authoritarian again to tell two consenting adults they cannot enjoy the same government benefits of marriage because your bible said so.  Plus do you know why marriage was even a government institution in the first place?

Drugs: nobody is talking about giving drugs to kids anymore than WE are talking about giving FA subguns to unsupervised children.  Stop using the same thinking as liberal dipshits.  An you're wrong, most Americans want MJ decriminalized and an end to the war on drugs, but not Repubs.  Authoritarian, again, to tell grown adults what they can or cannot ingest.  We allow nicotine and alcohol, so it isn't about safety.  It's about maintaining the revenue stream to maintian another HUGE government agency and LEO funding sources.


Here's another one: criminal justice reform.  That and the drug war is a mitigating factor that is keeping black children fatherless and perpetuating the chimpout culture you all like to bag on.  If you don;t like the behavior of poor young people raised poorly by a single parent, maybe you should stop contributing to that situation by putting all of their fathers in jail.  Do you know how many of our prison population is in for long term as the result of a nonviolent crime?  I'll let you look it up.

You can't say you support individual liberty when you limit it to only those liberties which you personally choose to exercise.


EDIT: and this is why I specify the difference between conservatives and Republicans.  conservatives want smaller government and more individual liberty, Republicans only say they do, and then continue to grow DHS, BATFE, DEA - pretty counter to the stated ideal, no?

As others have mentioned, Reagan gave good lip service.  Unlike unapologetic big gov't R's, he at least recognized the virtues of libertarianism.  

For those who haven't read Hayek's essays (not necessarily you, beekeeper, but the broader audience here), a "conservative" in the terminology of that time was one who wanted things to remain as they were and who would be willing to utilize the power of government restrictions to curb the natural progression of society that would otherwise occur absent such restrictions.  Conservatism is about locking things in place with reference to a particular point in time/cultural evolution.  What Hayek calls "socialists" are those who wish to use the power of government to force the progression of society to a particular end point as opposed to those who wish for it to remain static.  Hayek notes that the term liberal (now often called "liberterian") included those who wish to allow natural societal progression by removing government roadblocks or incentives that would hinder or push that progression.  It is the ideal of limited government and private solutions to problems.

His historical discussion of the use of these terms includes a description of how socialist ideas for using government to shape society towards equality were rebuffed by liberals and the term "socialist" became encumbered with negative connotations.  Having poisoned that word, the socialists began self-identifying as "progressives" (because progress is good, right?) and eventually misappropriated the moniker "liberal" after being able to deceive enough "liberals" into believing that liberty without the means to take advantage of it is not liberty; that liberty requires some modicum of equality of ability.  And so over time the classical "liberals," no longer wanting to use that term due to its bastardization, came to call themselves "conservatives."  You will notice that once the once-positive term "liberal" was ruined the socialists began moving back to the use of "progressive" and are slowly, but surely, continuing to a point where they will likely call themselves "socialist" again.

The Republican party seems now to be an interesting case of only somewhat strange bedfellows, where liberals (libertarians) and conservatives have found common cause on many issues because the particular point in time/cultural evolution that many conservatives now use as their frame of reference is a time and state when real liberalism flourished: the time of the founding of our country and the principles that animated the thinkers of that time.  To Hayek, the enemy of both the current conservative and libertarian is the socialist, who seeks something very different.

 
I am not at all opposed to or hostile to the principle that government works best when it stays out of people's way.


That said, Libertarian ideas, as they are today, are lunacy. Open borders, privatized law enforcement, legalized everything, isolationism, unfettered trade, abortion on demand and a government too weak to stop anyone from doing anything is a recipe for oppression, not freedom. Nature abhors a vacuum, and as soon as someone with power and money decided they were going to be in charge instead, then the Libertarian dream would topple and be replaced by a dictator or warlord, or someone of that nature.


Freedom can really only last as long as someone else is defending it, and anything that is unrestricted will be abused and corrupted until freedom becomes oppression.

Don't let the internet jockeys get you down.  Creating or perpetuating a fracture between conservatives and libertarians doesn't really advance the cause of either and I get pretty tired of all of the back and forth name calling and accusations that go between the two as well.  I think we may have had this conversation before in another thread.  

Cheers!

lol

Nothing but unicorn farts.

That's a load of crap.   In case you didn't realize this, the Federal Government just struck down the marriage laws that were voted on and enacted by the people of their states.  Most people consider marriage to be between a man and a woman, just as most people have believed for thousands of years.

The GOVERNMENT just imposed its NEW, government definition on the people, against the WILL of the People.

We now have a Federal Government Definition of Marriage and it is being forced upon the people.  YOU call that Liberty?

Liberals are just so Strange.

You are correct. I'm guessing this fool is confusing Republican with Conservative. Even the Conservative party in this country is liberal.

Well, I beg to differ.  The definition of marriage EVOLVED with society, govt is now forced to get up to date, Republicans are fighting it (making them look even stupider to those in the middle) and you consider the government dictating terms of a union between two consenting adults, to exclude certain adults liberty??  Not long ago blacks and whites couldn't marry either.  Did government force THAT definition of marriage on us (whites only)?  I can tell you who tried to keep it that way, but you probably already know who.  

How can you in good conscience impose your morals on other people (gay marriage) and then cry foul when they do the same to you (gun control)?  Pretty hypocritical.  The Republican party =/= Conservative.  R and D are equally authoritarian and seek in equal measure to grow and maintain the size and scope of government.  This is demonstrable fact, regardless if you like it or not.  We have WAAAAAAY too many "radio Republicans" and not enough conservatives.  If you don;t like gay marriage then don't get one.  If you don't like gays, then don't suck a D.  The ends NEVER justify the means if the means are government force, authority, and coercion - regardless the issue.

That's more bullshit.  The definition did NOT evolve.  It remained the same, and a small, but vocal minority convinced the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to impose a new definition on the People, against their will.  You can "beg to differ" all day, but that's the facts.



Your straw man argument sucks ass.   The Federal Government just imposed THEIR morals on the People.   Prior to the decision, it was up to the States and the People to decide how to govern themselves.

Lord have mercy...


 
 

LOL at the lack of reading comprehension in this thread

Just replace "opportunist and lacks principles" with "a hopeless romantic hung up on storybook morality" and it does describe US conservatives very well.

An excellent concise summary there. Thank you.

In my brief tenure here, I don't recall seeing anyone claiming to call Bill O'Reilly good.  

 

in red

Rant by a liberal with lots of big words and run on sentences trying to explain why conservatives are actually the liberals.

Freedom, so dangerous.

The difficulty with that text is that Hayek was speaking of conservatives in the European sense of the word, which have some fundamental differences from their American counterpart.

Reagan believed in limited government, as did the founders.  Neither he nor they were libertarians.  

As we've moved away from the true meanings of words the labels have become very confusing.  Almost to the point that they're all unusable.  

Calling yourself a "conservative" today is strange.  What are you trying to "conserve"?  The expensive, expansive, big daddy government we have today?  Are "conservatives" really trying to hold the line and conserve this?

Those calling themselves "liberal" are even stranger.  Liberalism is concerned with individual liberty, private property rights, free market capitalism, the elimination of institutional inequality (no kings, nobles), small government, and a recognition of the natural rights of all men.  ...is this what today's liberals are trying to accomplish?

It's very confusing, and has gotten to the point where the labels no longer express clear meaning.  


 

When I say I am a conservative, it means that I promote the conservation of the traditional meaning of America.  A limited federal government of enumerated powers.  A divided federal government where specific powers are delegated to the three branches.  Federalism where those powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.  That is what I wish to conserve.

I'd also be happy to call myself a classical liberal, meaning that I support that which maximizes liberty for the most people.

I am not a libertarian because I believe that culture is vitally important to the health of the nation.  I do not believe that libertarianism is a self sustaining movement in that I believe that if a libertarian political system naturally leads to a "socially liberal society", then that socially liberal society will naturally vote themselves a more left wing, and therefore less free government due to the social pathologies that naturally arise from social liberalism.

Likewise, I do not believe in open borders which is a core belief in libertarianism which many who call themselves libertarian in this forum often times do not wish to admit.

Furthermore, I find libertarianism to be a utopian movement.  An impulse which it shares with the polar opposite end of the political spectrum, i.e. communism.  Any movement which does not accept, and in fact plan on, the imperfect and imperfectable nature of man is doomed to failure, and often times more than not, spectacular failure that results in the misery of millions.

Hayak's "conservative" doesn't exist in America. American conservatives are liberals--classical liberals.

You need to understand the difference between European and American terminology. Long ago in America the left stole the term "liberal".

Road to Serfdom was about the basic similarity between national socialism and other types of socialism.

Hayek used the classical definition of liberal and conservative. The prefaces to Road to Serfdom in the copy I have discuss this.

He was also a bit put back by the manner Americans accepted Road to Serfdom. In the UK, the left at least was willing to discuss it. In the US, one political party accepted it right off, while the other dealt with it by ignoring it, hoping it would go away.

The point of the new definition of marriage is simply to force small buisness and all Americans to accept it on gay terms no matter their personal objections. It isn't about freedom.

It is intentional. The left stole the term "liberal", which doe not apply to them. They stole it after making "progressive" toxic, and are moving back to "progressive" after making "liberal" toxic.

There is no real American conservative movement. What we call "conservative" is actually liberal, and libertarians are also liberals. The conservative/libertarian branch are the liberal branch of politics in the US, despite their internal differences.

I'll note that much of the defense of the culture was at the local level, including family, church, and local community. The left has gone about destroying such institutions. The result is more centralized power.

The left's current attack on traditional marriage is in fact an effort to apply federal control, to force bakers to bake cakes, etc. Gay marriage may superficially appear to advance freedom, but that is pure illusion.

and that is why libertine philosophy is so important. Town, city, county, state, federal government. That should be the order of power. The federal government has usurped the power of the people. Some power hungry bunch of assholes a thousand miles away should not be able to dictate the minute detail of daily life. The Constitution and bill of rights, and the Federalist papers all make that clear.

The feds have no part to play in abortion, marrage, and a million other things that they have taken control of. Niether expressed or implied.

Oh I agree.  In fact, I don't want a bunch of legal prohibitions in an attempt to maintain the culture, most certainly not at the federal level.

The best protectors of the culture are social.  Social mores, even stigmas against certain socially pathological behaviors.  However, what we've been in the process of doing over the last 50 years is dismantling both the legal and societal norms in society.  There seems to be some belief that you can simply take society apart piece by piece and reassemble it in whatever configuration that pleases you at the moment and that everything will work fine.  I suspect we'll find that is not the case.

I think you need to look up the definition of "libertine", which indeed is part of the problem in the libertarian movement.

lulz. Libertarians are about as libertine as progressives. they want to use centralized power to their own ends. Libertines believe that each town, county, and state should form its own social norms and laws and that the only purpose of a centralized authority is to insure no state becomes tyrannical and to deal with interstate and international interests and concerns.

So libertarians want to use centralized power to control others, but they only want centralized authority to deal with interstate and international interests and concerns.

How does that work exactly?

I think there are some third grade level breakdowns of Hayaks essays, let me see if I can dig one up for you.

The leftist agenda is all about changing society to fit their utopian ideal. And they all have a different vision of utopia.

Meh, 1960

Definitions have changed

It is worth pointing out that it is the left that made marriage a federal institution, primarly via the income tax. But also via things like social security, medicare, etc. Now a leftist court has made a federal marriage system an explicit means of leveraging power against local government, state government, small buisness, and churches. And in doing so have claimed it is in the name of liberty.

 

The definitions were different long before 1960. It is European vs US terminology.