Libertarianism and Conservatism vs. Liberalism and Progressivism

Not being a smartass, but can you explain how "Libertarian society" is not an oxymoron?

Seems like "of the people, by the people, for the people" is contrary to the idea.

 

That's not how I view "conservativism" or how I was raised to view it. I was always under the assumption that it meant fiscally conservative. Today it means morally conservative. Just as "liberal" was with money, making it the polar opposite of "conservative". Now liberal means morally liberal... Progressive is the new term. I've never heard conservative meaning valuing tradition. Not in any of my poli sci classes, but who knows....

 

Progressive isn't a new term, that's the thing. People may be using it a lot more these days as some kind of synonym for liberal, but it's not a new term. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were all progressives, and even termed themselves as such. There was a Progressive Party formed in the early 1900s. As for conservative, the term and idea goes back much farther than recent American politics. Similar to Denny, by "tradition" I meant resistant to change and favoring status quo. That's been a major political position for thousands of years, regardless of what it was termed. More recently, in the West, it's called conservatism.

While there is both social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, progressivism was in opposition to social conservatism (as progress versus resistance to change is not as meaningful when it comes to fiscal issues). These days, a lot of people use liberal and progressive interchangeably, but they certainly weren't conceived of as the same thing and the term "progressive" was not created as a self-compliment...it was to illustrate a desire for pushing things forward by upheaval, combating the desire to keep things stable and the same.

 

One thing to note about Thomas Jefferson is that he loved his slavery. In fact, some of his justification for slavery made him sound as though he was a socialist. The idea being that one should not free their slaves into harms way & instead provide food, shelter & safety for them. Though one wonders if those were his true feelings or just a way of justifying his use of slaves.

I think people need to stop candy coating the "Founding Fathers" as if they were ineffable Gods who only spoke truth. Having flawed dead men "take sides" in modern debate is iffy.

 

So they don't favor the status quo, they want to radically change it into what it was in an earlier, less educated time. Ignore science and pretend we don't know we're polluting the Earth. Play dumb and pretend we can afford to fund wars with tax $ for the oil companies and Halliburton to profit from. That sounds more like the conservatives I know. Maybe they should be called Regressives? They never progress and they certainly don't conserve anything.

 

They were "ineffable Gods" compared to the scum that runs the country today.

 

I see little difference.

 

Between the people who designed this country and the people who run the country now? Are you kidding? Why don't you read a few books.

 

I guess I've never met, seen, or read about a real conservative. Probably are none.

Contrary to your assertion, Reagan certainly does not fit the description.

 

I've read many, even some that no longer exist. I've read the textbooks the government authored for public schools, and a myriad of library books authored by people from varied walks of life.

History is re-written constantly, so the books you read now may not tell the actual true story, and the ones I read may not either.

But you seem adamant about it so I'll ask you, in what way are they different?

 

Ah... you beat me to it.

 

Bumping my post, and wondering why Denny sides so much with Big Government Republicans while claiming to be Libertarian.

Denny, I hate to say it, but you may be Libertarian in name only. Either that, or your hate for the left makes you side with the right (against the left).

While you may say that you are Libertarian and you aren't for this and that, your post history seems to have your ideological leanings far closer to one of a republican than a libertarian.

I consider myself Liberal/Libertarian. I can argue my opinions on things all day, but at the end of the day, its my opinion and the government needs to stay out of it. For example, I'm against abortion past the first few weeks, I think it is wrong. At the same time, it isn't any of the government's business what a women does with her body. A majority of female congresspeople are for the woman's right to choose, while an old male bureaucrat sits there trying to tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies.

 

Isn't this in itself interventionist and non-Libertarian? I suppose one can be Libertarian and not be 100% agreed with all the principles, but it seems that their belief on war is one of the most fundamental parts of Libertarianism.