Conservatives vs. Libertarians

by on

“Have you ever wondered why conservatives are so opposed to government interference in the marketplace yet so tolerant, even welcoming, of its role in our personal lives?” asks Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum. She observes:

The idea that government knows best is anathema to fiscal conservatives, who believe in a limited government of enumerated powers. How is it that same government can be the ultimate authority on how we live our lives, whom we can marry, how we raise our children, where we worship, what we inhale and ingest, and what we do behind closed doors?

When Baum asks the question of Cato Institute libertarian David Boaz and Heritage Institute conservative David Azerrad, she gets illuminating responses.

43 Comments for “Conservatives vs. Libertarians”

  1. posted by Houndentenor on

    I do not personally know a single conservative who doesn’t love government spending that benefits them personally. They just hate it when it benefits someone else. And every libertarian I know really just wants to legalize pot. “Conservatives” do a good game of talking about smaller government but then throw a fit when it looks like the government program that supplies them with lucrative contracts is about to get cut.

  2. posted by Mark F. on

    “And every libertarian I know really just wants to legalize pot.”

    You must not know many libertarians.

  3. posted by John D on

    She also gets a line of BS from David Azerrad of the Heritage Foundation. He tells her that “research has shown the nuclear family is best for raising kids.”

    Yet what research actually has shown is that a stable adult couple is the best for raising kids (sorry single parents and those undergoing contentious divorces). One study even indicated that a pair of lesbian moms might be the best situation of them all. Does the Heritage Foundation care about what the research really says?

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      So does “nuclear” only mean one dad, one mom and one or more children?

      What if we stopped arguing over the ideal situation for children and tried to help the kids who have no family to speak of, or who are in abusive or neglectful situations? Those kids are at risk. I don’t think there’s any evidence that kids with two moms are in any danger.

      This is what I find so bizarre about the religious right. There are very real problems out there that we could pretty much all agree are real problems and they are so focused on some Leave it to Beaver fantasy of family life that they can’t see what’s happening in their own communities.

      • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

        Actually, they do far better.

        Meanwhile, Houndentenor, you pretend to care, but all your gay-sex marriage organizations do is whine and scream and cry about how mean the “breeders” are to you.

        No one seriously believes you care about children as anything other than props and excuses. That’s shown by how you and your fellow gays and lesbians consider them nothing but a worthless mass of cells.

        • posted by John D on

          Okay, I followed your link. So Focus on the Family approves of adoption. Laudable, but I’m not sure how that squares with the conservatives who pretend that research shows that “children do best with their biological mother and father” (a frequent claim by Maggie Gallagher).

          I also have no idea how it is relevant to anything Houndentenor or I wrote. Nowhere on the page do they make the claim that children do better in a nuclear family.

          And I think Houndentenor’s question is “just what is this nuclear family we speak of?” Mom, Dad, and their biological kids? A heterosexual couple and their adopted children? A lesbian couple and their children? Two dads and their kids?

          Face it “nuclear families good” is not a response to “should we allow same-sex couples to marry?”

        • posted by Houndentenor on

          More strawmen arguments. Quel surprise!

          • posted by John D on

            Nope, not a strawman. A strawman would be when the opponent to marriage equality suggests that the proponent must be in favor of incestuous marriages as well.

            This is just a plain ol’ non sequitur.

        • posted by DragonScorpion on

          “Gays and lesbians consider children nothing but a worthless mass of cells?” ~ North Dallas Thirty

          So says the homophobic bigot. I see things around here haven’t changed from several years ago.

    • posted by David Lampo on

      You’re right; many conservatives consistently lie about the research that’s been done on this issue, pulling a bait and switch by using research comparing single moms, usually living in poverty, with two-parent families with higher incomes and stability and using that research to argue against gay parenting, which it didn’t cover at all.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    I do not personally know a single conservative who doesn’t love government spending that benefits them personally. They just hate it when it benefits someone else. And every libertarian I know really just wants to legalize pot.

    Funny.

    Well, as a proud whatever I am, the only reasons I tolerate the current fantaticism about frugality are because 1) it’s winning, and 2) I’m a little convinced that without it everything will fall apart, and bye-bye big moral government.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I believe someone is truly a libertarian when they refuse government help of any kind. I don’t see that here. What I see are people who get rich off the government and then scream about “big government”. I see it every day. I’m sure there are exceptions…there must be people out there who don’t believe in big government and therefore refuse help from FEMA, or unemployment or whatever benefits for which they would be eligible. I just never meet them. All I hear is a lot of talk. All I see is a lot of hypocrisy.

  5. posted by Shadow Chaser on

    I have met and known economic libertarians. I have met and known social issue libertarians. I have yet meet and know a person who is libertarian on both economic and social issues.

    Even Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is opposed to abortion on demand. I cannot think of any issue that would better represent libertarianism than the personal decision of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

    • posted by Jorge on

      I think the homicide angle might have something to do with that.

      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        I think the homicide angle might have something to do with that.

        The “abortion is murder” mantra fascinates me.

        When I ask, “You feel strongly about abortion, obviously, since you consider it murder — so how many years in prison would you propose for a woman who has an abortion?”, the backsliding begins.

        Usually I’m told that it is the doctor who performs the abortion, not the woman who pays the doctor, who is the murderer.

        So I then ask whether they would similarly absolve a woman who paid a hit man to kill her husband, letting her off the hook because she didn’t actually do the killing.

        That’s when it gets interesting …

        The simple fact is that the whole “abortion is murder” mantra is a mantra, not a seriously held belief. If it was, then the proponents of that point of view would be willing to impose the penalties the law extracts for murder against all of the parties involved. They aren’t, and I don’t take them any more seriously than they take themselves.

        • posted by David Lampo on

          How can you “murder” a mass of cells that has no ability to think or reason or act independently. Don’t rights accrue to sentient human beings because they have the ability to make deliberate choices based on their own values? How does a fetus meet any of these minimum standards?

        • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

          Sure, Tom.

          Manslaughter ought to do it.

          The reason why is very simple. A pregnancy is the result of negligence on the part of adults. Their killing the end result should carry the same penalty in utero as it does outside. And if the pregnancy is the result of non-consensual sex, the rapist or incest practitioner should face the full penalty for the abortion.

          You of course will be appalled, because you honestly believe the only form of birth control is abortion. Part of that is ignorance on your part, but the other portion is because your Obama Party is so heavily dependent on abortion as a means of social control — males like yourself abuse women who refuse you sex or demand that you wear a condom — and also financially.

          Also, Tom, do you agree with David Lampo that children are nothing more than a “mass of cells”? Perhaps you can explain why you did not abort these children you claim to have, since according to David Lampo and your fellow LGBT Obama supporters, children have no rights and certainly none to live.

          Take responsibility, Tom. You and your fellow LGBT insist that children are worthless things, not even human, and have no value. Why didn’t you kill yours? And would you agree that had they been killed by someone else, that would not have been a crime?

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Manslaughter ought to do it.

            It is your view, then, that the act of procuring and/or performing an abortion is not an intentional act? Intention is the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            And here we have the typical hateful right wing attitude.

            So you’re saying that you would prosecute women who have abortions for manslaughter. At least your honest. Most anti-choicers refuse to answer the question of what the punishment would be if abortion were illegal. Thanks for saying what most are afraid to say.

          • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

            Second line, Tom.

            A pregnancy is the result of negligence on the part of adults.

            That negligence is rarely intentional; it’s usually just stupidity and irresponsibility.

            And meanwhile to Houndentenor, oh no; I would prosecute both the woman who had the abortion and the man who got her pregnant.

            If liberal white males like yourself had to bear the penalty for abortion as well, you would think twice about making it necessary in the first place. Anyone with half a brain realizes that abortion is a godsend for irresponsible liberal men more than it is for women; it gets them out of having to control themselves sexually, allows them to manipulate women, and allows them to dump the full responsibility for their mistakes onto women.

            Meanwhile, as an interim step, I propose that the government make it illegal to charge for an abortion; providers who wish to perform abortions must do so at no cost whatsoever to the woman, or may opt to not perform abortions at all.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Dan: Manslaughter ought to do it.

            Tom: It is your view, then, that the act of procuring and/or performing an abortion is not an intentional act? Intention is the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

            Dan: Second line, Tom. A pregnancy is the result of negligence on the part of adults. That negligence is rarely intentional; it’s usually just stupidity and irresponsibility.

            The abortion itself is intentional, though, Dan. And that, presumably, is what the law will address, not the pregnancy or the reason that the pregnancy came into being.

        • posted by Jorge on

          The “abortion is murder” mantra fascinates me.

          It’s not rocket science. Either you believe life begins at conception, life begins at birth, or life begins somewhere in-between; whichever you believe, you run with it.

          The simple fact is that the whole “abortion is murder” mantra is a mantra, not a seriously held belief. If it was, then the proponents of that point of view would be willing to impose the penalties the law extracts for murder against all of the parties involved. They aren’t, and I don’t take them any more seriously than they take themselves.

          You are playing the classic rhetorical deception of “If you believe X, you must reach the conclusion that makes the most sense to me, or else you don’t really believe X.”

          The case of illegal immigration is a real-life example of just the sort of dichotomy you decry as unserious: It is a much more serious crime in this country to employ an illegal immigrant than it is work while you are in this country illegally. That is simply where the political judgment of this country lies, and it lies in that place for a host of practical and ethical reasons. So when you tell me that people are not serious about their pro-life views just because they do not adopt the same rigid reasoning you think people who do not agree with you should logically apply, you are engaging in an unserious sport of political gamesmanship. It is time for you to stop.

          • posted by Houndentenor on

            How often is anyone really punished for hiring illegal workers? If people are working illegally, and they are, then they can only do so if someone hires them. Those caught here illegally are deported. That is their punishment. So far as I know, those caught hiring them are fined.

            If we were serious about illegal immigration and undocumented workers we’d have mandatory jail time for those who hire illegal workers. And we don’t. It’s why I’m sick and tired of hearing about this topic. We know what to do but we aren’t going to do about it, so I don’t know why we talk about it at all except as a wedge issue.

          • posted by Jorge on

            If we were serious about illegal immigration…

            I knew that would be the weak point of my argument.

        • posted by Jorge on

          One more thing.

          Since people seem to be a little hung up on diction, I am *very* thankful I was wise enough to say “homicide” and not “murder”. Although homicide has a much starker tone than murder does, its meaning is less so.

          NYAH!

          Tom S has major problems with people who advocate the government interfering to stop abortion by punishing abortion doctors. It remains that the motivation to opposition to abortion is about the taking of human life, the proposed solution is government intervention and proscription, and the taking of human life is a very traditional justification for government intervention and proscription.

          Or does he seriously think that there is some kind of ulterior motive in the pro-life movement? If so, I would like him to say what it is, and how he knows, with affirmative evidence (that is, direct evidence as opposed to deduction based on the absence of something), that this is indeed the ulterior motive.

          (I’d consider it a kindness if he did so without arguing that ND30 has declared war on women on this website.)

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Jorge, my personal views concerning the morality of abortion, or yours for that matter, are not relevant to the question of when, whether and under what circumstances the laws of our country should regulate abortion.

            But since you (“I’d consider it a kindness if he did so without arguing that ND30 has declared war on women on this website.“) and Dan (“… you honestly believe the only form of birth control is abortion …) both seem to be determined to invent views that I haven’t expressed, here is a summary of my personal views about the morality of abortion, which are consistent with the teaching of my religious tradition:

            (1) Abortion is morally prohibited in most cases, but does not constitute murder;

            (2) Abortion is morally permitted in cases in which: (a) the fetus endangers the mother’s life or seriously endanger’s the mother’s physical or mental health; (b) the birth of another child is will endanger the life of other children born to the mother, as in cases of famine; (c) the fetus has been conceived by rape, incest or force; (d) a reasonable belief exists that the fetus has been harmed and will suffer serious mental and/or physical defects.

            Within my religious tradition, other respected authorities argue that in cases when genetic testing determines that the child to be born will have a disease that will cause death or severe disability and the parents believe that the impending birth will be an impossible situation for them, particularly when other children have been born to the family who will be affected, abortion is also morally permitted. I do not personally hold to this view.

            The bottom line is that I believe that the vast majority of abortions performed in this country are morally prohibited.

            Now, let’s move on to the relevant question: Should the civil law determine when, whether and under what circumstances a woman should be permitted to obtain and abortion?

            I do not believe that the law should so so, except in very limited — and I do mean very limited — cases. I believe that the constitution affirms the right of the man and woman involved in the abortion decision to act in accordance with the moral and religious dictates of their consciences with respect to abortion. I do not believe that the law should infringe on this right, or impose the moral judgement of the majority upon the individuals involved. In short, I believe that the abortion decision should be between one man, one woman and God. I think that the government should stay out of it.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Or does he seriously think that there is some kind of ulterior motive in the pro-life movement? If so, I would like him to say what it is, and how he knows, with affirmative evidence (that is, direct evidence as opposed to deduction based on the absence of something), that this is indeed the ulterior motive.

            I do not think that pro-life groups have an ulterior motive.

            The agenda of the pro-life movement is clear and explicit: (1) enactment of an amendment to the United States constitution allowing the federal government and the several states to prohibit abortion, (2) enactment of an amendment to the United States constitution and the constitutions of the several states granting fertilized embroyos “personhood” for legal purposes, effectively banning IUD’s and other “abortificant” birth control and in vitro fertilization, and allowing the federal government and the several states to treat abortion as unlawful homocide in criminal law, (3) enactment of laws (e.g. public funding, parental consent, imposition of medically unneccessary procedures such as ultrasounds as part of the abortion process, and so on) at the federal and state level limiting the ability of individuals to obtain abortions as fully as possible pending enactment of the amendments, and (4) securing appointment of justices to SCOTUS who are pledged to overturn Rov v. Wade and progeny.

            The pro-life groups make no bones about their motivations, either. The groups are animated by firmly and sincerely held, oft-expressed, religious belief that human life begins at the moment of conception.

            It is clear that many in the pro-life movement believe that Christian moral teaching, as they understand it, should control our laws and our constitution, notwithstanding the constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom to other religionists and non-religionists. As Mike Huckabee put it a few years back: “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.” The fact that other religions have a differing view of what constitute’s God’s law is lost on Huckabee and those in the pro-life movement who push for the constitutional amendments.

            It is not that I think that the pro-life movement has an ulterior motive. I simply disagree with positions that the pro-life movement takes on the constitution and the law, and on the proper role of Christian moral teaching in our constitutional and legal system.

          • posted by Jorge on

            Jorge, my personal views concerning the morality of abortion, or yours for that matter, are not relevant to the question of when, whether and under what circumstances the laws of our country should regulate abortion.

            Okay, first of all, I don’t agree with that. I’m a strong believer in legislating morality, and abortion is a prime example of a moral issue that affects the public good. There are important principles of human life, personal liberty (or privacy), and the value each is given in different circumstances, at stake on a massive scale.

            But even if that’s the case that you choose to make you personal views and mine on abortion irrelevant to howyou choose to act on public policy, I do not understand why you are so judgmental about other people’s personal views, and how they use them to make ethical public policy.

            But since you (“I’d consider it a kindness if he did so without arguing that ND30 has declared war on women on this website.“) seem to be determined to invent views that I haven’t expressed…

            I’m just concerned you might overinterpret the outliers.

            (1) Abortion is morally prohibited in most cases, but does not constitute murder

            Does it constitute the taking of a human life?

            If so, it’s homicide. As in, death of a person caused by another person. If not, I’d be interested to know why you think it’s morally prohibited.

            Murder is primarily a legal, though also quasi-moral, judgment.

            Now, let’s move on to the relevant question: Should the civil law determine when, whether and under what circumstances a woman should be permitted to obtain and abortion?

            I do not believe that the law should so so, except in very limited — and I do mean very limited — cases.

            I hold the opposite view from you on both counts.

            I think abortion is in most cases moral (although the scientific and spiritual murkiness on when human life actually begins leads me toward frowning upon it), but that the final authority on the matter should be the community.

            I do not think there is any valid constitutional right to an abortion, although I favor the result in Roe v. Wade.

          • posted by Tom Scharbach on

            Does it [abortion] constitute the taking of a human life? If so, it’s homicide. As in, death of a person caused by another person. If not, I’d be interested to know why you think it’s morally prohibited. Murder is primarily a legal, though also quasi-moral, judgment.

            In the teaching of my religious tradition: (1) a fetus is not considered a human being; (2) a fetus is considered a “potential” human being, or perhaps, a “life to come”; and (3) both human beings and fetuses beings are valued, but a human being has moral precedence over a fetus.

            I agree those religious/moral concepts, and I think that if you apply those religious/moral principles to the list I enumerated, you’ll see the logic behind the list.

            In answer to your specific question, I do not consider a fetus to be a human being, and, hence, I do not consider abortion to be the taking of human life.

            “… the final authority on the matter should be the community.”

            We disagree. I think that the decision should be between the father, the mother and God I don’t think that “the community” — people who might or might not share the moral/religious convictions of the father and mother, and do not have to live with the consequences — should make the decision for the couple. I do not think that the government should be involved at all.

          • posted by Jorge on

            I don’t think that “the community” — people who might or might not share the moral/religious convictions of the father and mother, and do not have to live with the consequences — should make the decision for the couple. I do not think that the government should be involved at all.

            *Shrugs.*

            I think that kind of standard is an easy way out of excusing people from committing crime. They just need to invent a religious reason for it.

  6. posted by Don on

    Going back to the original premise, I believe Baum missed a very critical and obvious point. Conservatives are not really interested in morality. They are interested in enforcing morality they disapprove of and would never engage in. Abortion, gay marriage, pot smoking. Let the shrieking begin. Things get interesting when they get pregnant unexpectedly or have a lesbian daughter. But generally they only denounce things to demagogue a perceived small group outside the circle. True moral enforcement by government would tackle gluttony and greed. But demagoguing obesity or financial greed is a no-no on the right. There is only a tenuous reluctance t to pooh-pooh racism as many in the flock believe in racial superiority (false pride, morally speaking).

    In short, they cobble together a host of moral teachings that largely do not apply to them and they never will. It’s pure politics. There were millions of churchgoers who wanted codified things their preachers tell them are musts. All someone had to do was promise them to help make the preacher’s vision a reality. And the preachers weren’t dumb by demonizing things their congregations would never do. (well, until the unplanned pregnancy . . .) Offer me salvation, social acceptance, and a huge dollop of “i’m better than you because i would never do X”, and I’ll be yours forever. Ask nothing of me (lose weight you gluttonous bastard) and make me feel better than other people and i will tithe regularly.

    This ain’t that complicated. All the complicated theoretical justifications after the fact are just window dressing to make it less hypocritical and self-serving on its face.

    • posted by North Dallas Thirty on

      And, given how gays and lesbians like the bigot Don scream and demand that government punish those who disagree with them, what we can see is paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of projection.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Conservatives are really only interested in forcing the rest of us to play along with their hypocrisy. Not gonna happen.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Not really. I have known plenty of conservatives who were closeted homosexuals, had snuck off to have an abortion, etc. In the south there’s a special kind of closet called a “preacher bar” where Baptists can hide their liquor in case someone from the church (or the preacher) comes over. They do plenty of the things they want to make illegal. They just want the rest of us to live a life of hypocrisy like they do. In fact, it’s almost become cliche that someone is doing, or at least obsessed with thinking about doing, whatever it is they rail about most loudly.

  7. posted by Doug on

    Hear this conservatives: Your god and your religion is NOT superior to my god or my religion so stop trying to force your god and your religion on me.

  8. posted by North Dallas Thirty on

    Not really, Doug; there’s ample proof out there showing that LGBT bigots like yourself are calling for the murder and death of Republicans.

    And as I linked, you’re screaming that businesses and employees should be punished for daring to express their religious and personal beliefs publicly.

Comments are closed.