Is libertarianism (or "social liberal/fiscal conservative") really a coherent, consistent philosophy?

Question

Think about it. If you just want the budget balanced (who doesn't), that doesn't really make you a fiscal conservative. The socialist governments of Scandinavia probably have lower deficits than ours, but I can't apply the label "conservative" to them.

Back to the US. 100 years ago, many today would describe the "sexual" climate as repressive. Divorce was shameful, and rare! Much less unwed parenthood! Sex (in principle) was for marriage, period. In practice, I'm sure it wasn't - plenty of shotgun weddings!

But if you're a TRUE fiscal conservative, you don't want to pay for welfare! A social liberal would have to say "do what you want, just don't bug me!" But with no guidance, we'd have tons of poor, unwanted kids. This sounds like Scrooge to me, not some enlightened person!

No, I don't want the government telling me what to do. But I think there are limits. Used to be, CHURCHES helped the poor. And there was no welfare. But there were RULES.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

I agree, social standards and economics are inextricably linked.

Answer 2

Libertarian policy is a faulty logic. It sets up government decisions and taxes as something to be avoided, but when a private company acts as government, they are fine with that, even if the private "government" is less accountable and more abusive.

From http://freedemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/03/great-libertarian-fallacy_31.html
"Government is what government does"

"Someone Deciding about your life (what medicine your doctor can prescribe, how your electric is produced,etc)"? Yes? Then they are government!

"Do they charge you for the privilege (Insurance bill,power bill, etc")THAT is TAXES! And then the key Question.

"Can't hold them accountable for their decisions?" THEN THAT IS TYRANNY!!!!!


If you doubt it, try changing your power company, or your health insurance. Worse, your health insurance is often changed for you, with a whole new set of rules (LAWS!)about what you can and cannot do. And every year the laws are more oppressive and the taxes more obscene (over 60% of my not fabulous income, last I looked) They usually hide those costs in the salary you are not paid, so people don't know what they are really paying.

end quote

Any enterprise that takes more than one person has to be an organization, or government, It may be informal, or hidden, or very formal, organized very ah hoc or very rigidly, led in a very open transparent manner with very voluntary participation, or by con or exploit that the lesser members have no understanding of what happens or no real choice.

It can be like a ship with no outside force (at least for a while) or a town, or small business, with many forces that do not include the members of that group,either affecting or affected.

The only thing that matters is who makes the decisions and how are they held accountable for those decisions.

In the US 100 years ago most businesses were run by the folk who owned them, there was no CEO who looted the company, and left the stock holders with nothing, or rather those who did that were thrown in prison.

In small towns the person who owned the company lived in the same town as the workers, and had an income 5-7 times as much as his lowest paid worker. A good worker was as much a part of the company as the owner, and over abuse of workers, meant you could not hire competent help, because people did not move about so much. Many owners would retire by simply turning the company over to the lead worker.

Women had no power, they could not be self supporting unless they had rich parents, so those who could got married, and put up with anything because they had no choice, and the rest became whores because that was the only way to earn money, any children they had, if backroom abortions did not work, were sent to work houses to be exploited. There were rules but only for those who could enforce them.

In a small town the fact of the owner and workers in the same church, could let the church keep peace. But as power became divorced from location, abuse increased, often leading to murderous riots, particularly in increasingly big business.

For a more realistic view try watching Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York, not a total picture but certainly a case study. Your bucolic fantasy had a lot more twists and thorns than you imagine.

Answer 3

I admire libertarianism, though it has its faults (and I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of it is limited). But I really do feel some of its ideals (not ideas, because its somewhat idealistic) are worthy of at least looking into.

Social liberalism would be restricting government intervention into peoples lives. If they want to do drugs and kill themselves, well, not our problem. If they want to gay marry, not our problem. If they want to abort, not our problem. It basically says that a person is free to lead as deprived a lifestyle as they choose, and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, who cares. Its their own destruction. Not our problem.

Fiscal and economic conservatism would be along the lines of lowering taxes WAY down, eliminating welfare (the poor isn't our problem, they are poor because of something they did) and so on and so forth.

The only other thing I know about it is that, if I understand correctly, they advocate for a strong naitonal defense. Well I can dig it, as everyone wants to be safe.

Really, it stems from alot of social darwinistic ideologies, in which its ones own life, and they are free to succeed or die off, its no one elses problem. The government is very much hands off. The people are alowed to destroy themselves or become as rich as possible. Capitalism at its finest.

Really, I kind of like it. Because the degenerates would kill themselves off, and (theoretically) only the good in society would be left. However, and this is a BIG however, it has the posibility to lead to terrible downsides, as social darwinism surely has in the past. This is why I said that it is worthy of study, but I'm not so sure how well it would really work in real life.

Answer 4

Yes, I agree with many of the Lbertarians policies. Government is out of my pocketbook and out of my bedroom. The GOP has lost this and have been become for big government as much as the Democrats are. There is no real difference among them. I consider myself a fiscal conservative with social liberal tendencies and I'm appaled by big government and social conservatism. It's a shame that the Libertarians haven't become a major party, they woud do some serious competition to the Republicans.

Answer 5

the problem is that the liberal agenda and court rulings through the years gives to many entitlements and to switch to a libertarian stance today would mean more taxes. open everything up for live and let live but the laws on the books would then interpret to the govt has to pay for all those entitlements. This is why alot of the far left has tried to move toward libertarianism. using existing rules and opening everything up would be similar to Europe style govt.

Answer 6

It depends on definitions of liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism. Many times classical definitions don't apply to the reality.

http://www.theihs.org/about/id.1084/default.asp

If you believe this an accurate definition, then, although I identify with independent conservatism, I would say yes, call me a Libertarian. I temper that definition with the notion that as a member of society, I need to abide by the rules of society. If I don't follow the rules, it is my responsibility if my actions causes me problems. Therefore my liberty also means that I have more responsibility for my actions. If you look at the Biblical equivalent, it is free will.

Although, I identify myself as an independent conservative, I recognize that I am more like a Libertarian, in the above definition. Smaller government, personal responsibility for my liberty. This is the more like the classical liberals, not today's liberals, who many are the antithesis of classical liberals, at least the politicians. Today's political liberals are for using the government to grant group rights over individual rights, for influence over business. The government is responsible for people's actions. Therefore, they are not for liberty. Not like classical liberals, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, et al.

Answer 7

Thought is that at a 50% effective tax rate, it is stretching the budget to give to charity, though I still do. If government was not providing social services, it would be my obligation to do something to this effect. Private organizations WOULD emerge for these functions, and naturally, because my giving is optional, would be much more effective than the government.

Answer 8

Well, since they're winning so many elections... ok, low blow, but...

There's going to always be a need for government protections.

To a degree I agree with some libertarian principles, but I am not pro-choice and that's where I have to bow out.

Answer 9

I well known individual each question I answer. If it became well worth taking the time to respond to that is easily worth a well known individual. I well known individual many questions i do not answer for most causes. If the question is interesting although the answer i might want to have given is already given, if i'm uncertain the thanks to respond to to charm to my contacts to it so that they are going to answer (I have some staggering contacts), & although if i do not plan to respond to if that is humorous, diverse, or a splash i want to help draw others to their solutions. some might want to imagine I well known individual too freely, LOL! I have easily run out of stars on various days. yet stars are loose & I see no reason no longer to be loose with them. i'm no longer confident it truly is a philosophy, properly perchance that is! advantages!

Answer 10

Yeah...its very possible. Clinton is a perfect example of that.

He managed to eliminate social welfare AND balance the budget and eleminate the defecit. At the same time, social programs for women and children were left in tact and taxes were relatively low.

Answer 11

LIBERTARIAN MANTRA

I Like My Money, My Property, Living Like A Rock Star, Fvcking Like a Porn Star, and I Want Nothing to Do With You.

It's tough to argue with it.