I noticed that a lot of you described yourselves as conservatives and in the 2012 election topic thing a lot of you guys strongly disapprove of both parties.

So I was wondering if Libertarian would be a more fitting description for those of you that consider yourselves conservatives, or if you guys could maybe explain to me why you consider yourself conservative/libertarian?

I know among a lot of gays, being a conservative is tantamount to being a traitor and I don't see why; I don't wanna sound like I'm picking on anyone for believing what they do, I just wanted to know how you all think

There are many gay right-libertarians, myself included.

That's what I mean, though.
Like, in terms of social policies, aren't libertarians and liberals kinda on the same page? Like, they both want everyone to be equal, but they don't agree on how, right?
Libertarians want government out of people's bedrooms (unlike conservatives) but liberals want more government.

I just find it interesting how they want the same thing but in totally different ways, if I'm understanding this right :x

Bill o'reily is a self proclaimed libertarian who who opposes marriage equality. Too many people seem to use that term to identify themselves when they don't fall under the extremes of liberalism or republicanism. Quite silly in my opinion. That being said, he is also a laughing stock on the same level of Glenn Beck and shouldn't be taken seriously as a political icon.

On the other side of the spectrum, I've heard from many "Libertarians" that organized religion should be illegal, thus contradicting the original point of Libertarian ism to begin with.

TL;DR: people will call themselves whatever they want in order to feel special without actually having the views that their party represents.

But I always thought of libertarians as either more centrist than liberals or conservatives, they just want a lot less government; OR extreme on both ends, socially on the left and fiscally on the right.

this may be a little over simplified but:

I claim myself to be a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I am not a libertarian because I believe that there is the need for moderate government involvement in peoples lives, more so that libertarians subscribe to. I also think some libertarian candidates, e.g. Ron Paul, are too "out there" they cannot grasp reality. Especially, those who believe isolationism will solve our nations problems. I agree with more conservative policies, ideas than I do libertarian.

Do you guys see libertarianism as just an extension of the Republican Party (like with Ron Paul) or as an entirely different philosophy that can't be lumped along with the Republican Party?

Mainstream liberals pretend to want to extend personal freedom, but in practice, liberal politicians do nothing to end the war on drugs, improve immigration policy, end anti-prostitution laws etc. Only libertarians can claim to be passionate about ending state interference with individual liberty.

Libertarian with a capital "L" or a lowercase "l"?

Also not all libertarians are right-wing. Americans have this weird notion that all libertarians are conservatives/Ron Paul clones, which just isn't true. I'm a left-libertarian, so I get a lot of hate from both sides of the spectrum.


The straight line political spectrum that people generally think of isn't really a great tool to judge political ideology.

Great question!



This is a very common misconception. Someone can call them self "conservative" and only be in-line with most of conservatives on a few issues, or many. Our sexual orientation doesn't dictate our beliefs or opinions, and that's a fact.

I am a registered member of the Democratic Party (USA). I side with libertarians on several issues, such as those of gun control for example (to some extent).

Libertarianism is all about being economically/fiscally conservative, while perhapse much more liberal when it comes to social issues such as LGBT marriage, women's reproductive choice, gun control, etc.

I dont know what I am. But I do think there is need for government; to provide public goods like street lamps, or to prevent the formation of monopolies and protect the poor. I guess that would mean I don't consider myself as a libertarian.

I like to call myself a Libertarian. I'm pretty conservative, but I do support things like the NHS and a small welfare state. I'm a right wing libertarian.

Your signature just screams right wing

I hardly fit the the bible-bashing, homophobic sterortype do I?

The idea of libertarianism has been kind of warped by the existence of the American "Libertarian" Party, to a point where most people seem to confuse libertarianism with right-libertarianism, and in turn many people confuse right-libertarianism and the word libertarianism itself with being economically conservative and socially liberal, although the former is at least closer to being kind of correct. It's not that a right libertarian can't be either of those things, but in a lot of ways it's unlikely, because modern conservatives don't actually oppose statism much more than modern liberals do; especially once you consider that most conservatives want a bigger military. And, if that doesn't make sense, a government can't have much power without a military, because it can't force you to do anything without something to use to force you to do it. I think the fact that so many people here are libertarians is because our political systems are flawed enough to have let so many gay people fall through the cracks.

You can be a statist and a libertarian, and every single politician that calls his or herself a libertarian of any sort is obviously a statist. You can also be a communist, anarcho-communist, or left anarchist (which are all very similar, really) and call yourself a left-libertarian, and you can be a right-anarchist or capitalist anarchist and be a right-libertarian. Ayn Rand is the most famous example of a right-libertarian that I can think of, although that's kind of insulting to right-libertarians. Neither right- or left-libertarianism necessarily means you support any one economic theory, though, and not all libertarians/anarchists/communists/etc even support one over the other, some just oppose statism. That's why it's not that weird ILikeMenNow to be okay with the idea of things like a national health service; the right-ness of right-libertarianism doesn't depend on the right-ness of the conservatism of things like the Republican part or the Tories or whatever the main UK conservative party is called.

Anyway, the most basic principle of libertarianism that anyone that legitimately calls his or herself a libertarian can agree on is that everybody has the right to their own autonomy, which is why so many libertarians oppose statism. If you are really curious you should probably start with the basic philosophy of libertarianism, which you could read about here if you want something more prestigious than wikipeida. It's kind of dry and at times overly opinionated, but it does a good job of explaining the basic ethical grounds for libertarianism.

And I consider myself a left-libertarian because I don't necessarily support one political ideology other than general egalitarianism.

I may be wrong in this assumption, but I've always thought true Libertarianism to stick to the etymology of its name. Liberty. The ability to govern oneself.

I.E.- Laissez Faire economics and the ability to do whatever one pleases within the bounds of a social contract or some other morality. I would even go so far to say that Libertarianism is formal nature. The only guiding rule being you have a right to whatever you can seize and maintain for yourself. The beautiful anarchy of nature maintained in a mutualistic social order of voluntarism.

Difference between Liberal and Libertarian.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 613AAhAQ56

Libertarianism really only governs social policies. I've always found even the traditional political compass difficult in that economic policy and welfare policy can often be quite different (for instance, while I'd endorse a large welfare state and high taxation, I would otherwise endorse neo-liberal economic policy).

Is there like varying shades of libertarianism?
Say sommeone thinks "I don't support gun control or medicare, but I see the need for the fda."

Can you support some government programs but not others and still see yourself as libertarian?

I don't know if anyone else has noticed but there are predominantly two types of "libertarians" that you see on GTF: those who are dogmatic, extremist right-libertarians and those who think they're libertarian simply because certain instances of non-interference resonate with them. Little do the folks in latter camp realize just how…erm…peculiar many of these purists' positions on GTF really are.

If there's anything I've learned by observing them in the wild it's that they are not consequentialists at all. Of course libertarianism never claims to be, but it always struck me as odd to see them going about demonstrating failed states like Soviet Russia or North Korea and hashing out other pieces of evidence here and there to prove a point. It reminds me too much of debates with theists who try to prove the existence of a supreme being using "god proofs" even though said proofs were never the reason they became believers to begin with. Why they decide to waste one's time like this is beyond me.

A while back jakeyboy did an excellent job exposing their non-consequentialist nature in this thread regarding compulsory education, but that's actually a mild example believe it or not. One time someone on here actually had the nerve to raise Murray Rothbard as an intellectual hero and even link to one of his essays so that we may all revel in his brilliance. The essay was on children and their rights and Rothbard argued that while parents cannot aggress against their child in his utopian society, they can kill it: through omission, like not feeding and abandoning it. If they're lucky and are a little older they have the right to run away (is he not merciful?) but if they're an infant or toddler dependant upon its parents well then they're out of luck. But don't you dare obligate the parents to feed the child or to even transfer it to other guardians who might want to take care of it you filthy statist! Why, that's state coercion! The ultimate sin for them is any deprivation of individual liberty, no matter how minute and trivial, and is to be taken as an absolute above anything else we could possibly care about.

No one—and I mean no one—could seriously look at the foregoing set of facts in the aforementioned scenario and maintain that they care about outcomes and consequences. To hold to a view in which we want to privilege safeguarding the most trivial form of individual liberty in this one respect over the well-being of children is to have had one's moral compass blinded by persisting in this type of religious-like, deontological ideology. While such a worldview would make even a psychopath blush, the irony is that you'll be condescendingly frowned upon and called a statist and any other number of labels for not defending liberty as an absolute above all else in all instances. In fact some will even go so far as to argue that anyone who disagrees with their approach to liberty never really cared about it to begin with. Of course, anyone can play this game. If I were to ask someone if they still would love their parents even after they tried to violently rape and bury them alive and they respond by saying they wouldn't, I could equally argue that they never really loved their parents, or anyone else for that matter, because either you love unconditionally or you don't love at all—pick one.

A consequentialist often recognizes the nuances and complexities in individual situations and sees value in other principles that we can and should care about. Sometimes there are tradeoffs and not all solutions will be clean and discrepant-free, but this revulsion toward rough solutions gets you to these bizarre positions that are maintained with a straight face throughout this forum. It is this allergy to potential discrepancy that drives such right-libertarians to take the most extreme position, so as to cover up all holes, and be left with a philosophy that leaves Jeffrey Dahmer looking like Mister Rogers from PBS. Besides claims of self-evidence, resorting to name-calling or question-begging accusations, I've honestly yet to see someone convincingly justify this non-consequentialist political religion philosophy. Now if you'll excuse me I have some National Public Radio to listen to.