Check out the ongoing comments on my post at TexasGOPVote.org, if you’ve wondered about the philosophy of the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to win control of the Republican Party. They reaffirm my conclusion after years of flirting with (capital L)ibertarian philosophy: the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism. Conservatism advocates small government, with a few rules, while utilitarianism, and especially objectivism, celebrate license rather than liberty and all too often de-volve into nihilism.
I can sympathize with the proponents of Libertarianism, having spent years participating on the Libertarians for Life list-serve in the ’90’s and early 2000’s. I even tried out to justify “Christian Libertarianism,” which I’ve concluded is an oxymoron. (Check out the blog, Vox Popoli, which, unlike most Libertarian groups, supports traditional marriage.)
The comments at TexasGOPVote.org by one man on marriage were probably the most enlightening:
If two men or women want to get into a contract we see as morally wrong, who are you or me to tell them no?? They don’t have to accept our definition of marriage, and we don’t have to accept their definition of marriage, but neither one of us have the right to use government force to make the other accept our values. That would be Statism. Additionally, faith is a gift, and not all are blessed with it. You, nor I have the right to claim we know that which is unknowable. We can speculate, and we can have faith, but we cannot judge others who may have different beliefs.
These aren’t the first time we’ve heard/read/countered these arguments. Remember the calls for “open marriage” and “do your own thing” in the ’60’s? Demands for restructuring marriage and the family are pervasive in virtually every historic “revolution” EXCEPT the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles: from the enclave that gave us the Enlightenment, to the French Revolution, to the Soviet Revolution and the various social experiments of the 20th Century.
WingRight 
Mrs. Nuckols,
Implying that Ron Paul supporters are trying to win control of the Republican Party is pretty narrow. While that may end up being the case, that is not necessarily the goal for me…I can only speak for myself and perhaps my friends. We don’t want to take over the Republican Party. We want our government and our leaders to follow the Constitution, and it seems the best way is to influence and become more active in the political process.
You again carefully chose your words to separate libertarian vs. Libertarian. You seem to be pretty good at that, as to shield yourself from critique on a technicality but still get your point across. For your readers, little “l” libertarian is libertarian philosophy and ideas of small, limited government and individual liberty. Capital “L” Libertarian is a member or affiliate of the Libertarian Party. It’s clear you’re aware of this since you differentiated it in your post.
I cannot understand why you again try to pigeon hole us as Libertarian or Anarchists….NIHILISM??!! Come on! That’s not fair. Granted there may be a few in the Liberty Movement who are anarchists, but most of us COMPLETELY agree there is a role for government to play in society, and it happens to be clearly defined in the Constitution!
Your argument is only valid if I was a Libertarian. What did Ronald Reagan say about little “l” libertarians?!
“If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.” – Ronald Reagan
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
So while you say, “the Libertarian Party is not compatible with conservatism.” You are really trying to imply, “libertarians are not compatible with conservatism” in my opinion. I believe this because you carefully chose your words (as you admit), and you did it twice. You had to separate libertarian from Libertarian because you knew your argument would not work with a little “l”.
A little more context on my quote is helpful to your readers:
“I only know you from you committee votes. Your article just came across as trying to identify some radicals and anarchists with legitimate grassroots efforts to influence the party. I’m as pro-life as they come, and I think marriage is already defined. But I don’t think we should use the power of government to make other people believe or accept our values. That is not the role of government.
The role of government, as you’re well aware, is to protect the God given rights of individuals, Christian, or not, American, or not.
If two men or women want to get into a contract we see as morally wrong, who are you or me to tell them no?? They don’t have to accept our definition of marriage, and we don’t have to accept their definition of marriage, but neither one of us have the right to use government force to make the other accept our values. That would be Statism. Additionally, faith is a gift, and not all are blessed with it. You, nor I have the right to claim we know that which is unknowable. We can speculate, and we can have faith, but we cannot judge others who may have different beliefs.
Especially if those individuals agree with us on 80% of other subjects. We all have our own definitions of Conservatism, and it’s clear our elected officials do too.”
No one is calling for “open marriage” like you imply.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” – Aristotle
It’s my opinion that marriage is a religious term already defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman. I would suggest that all marriages are religious ceremonies and there should be no role for government in marriages. If a church wants to recognize a marriage that I don’t agree with, I don’t have any right to use government to make that church stop….do I? That seems to be what you’re suggesting…that government should use its force, its might, its resources to stop churches (of any religion) from recognizing a marriage that you or I don’t agree with.
I think the word “marriage” is the issue. I would like to consider removing the word marriage from all government documents and replacing it with some other word…like union or something acceptable.
Then the only role government would have in unions is a legal one…one of enforcing legal contracts of inheritance rights, benefits, and the like.
I could never understand why people believe that if unions between two men were recognized by governments, that our society would instantly become flooded with gay people. If homosexual behavior is addressed in the Bible, it should be clear that it has been occurring for thousands of years. It doesn’t seem to have taken over folks! It’s not going to destroy our family values people! Please give people more credit than that! I doubt you believe it is ONLY because of governments throughout history that gay people have NOT taken over our family values! That would be a ridiculous statement. I think people and government should quit picking on people who are different. Live and let live.
I just don’t feel government has any role to play in religious and personal affairs. Do you agree with that?
And I don’t define Liberty as “doing your own thing”.
Liberty is not being able to do what ever you want to do. Liberty is NOT having to do what you don’t want to do.
I don’t want to have to go ask the government permission to get married to a woman. Why do you feel I should?
And lastly, for you to suggest that Christian Libertarianism is an oxymoron, whether you meant capital “L” or were trying to imply lowercase “l”, is troubling. I strongly recommend you reconsider that comment. You might have a lot of Christian libertarian Republicans upset with you if they were to catch wind of this.
I hoped you and your readers enjoyed this “lecture”! 😛
Posted by Rob Hinojosa | June 16, 2012, 3:23 PMRob, I did say that I’ve been having these discussions on line since the early ’90’s. Also, in addition to my MD, I earned a Masters in Bioethics, heavy on the ethics. Your arguments are not new or original. Worse, they are predictable. You have not yet begun to qualify my logical falicicies, much less your own, but that will come in time.
The capitals, etc., in my earlier posts were intentional.
Marriage is more than government forcing or giving permission. The consequences of the legal definition of marriage reach across generations and to the core of government, itself. I’ve written often on WingRight and my earlier blog, LifeEthics, about marriage. Legalization of same sex marriage – or unions – doesn’t increase homosexuality, directly. It does decrease religious liberty and weakens the family. Notice the lawsuits in those US States that have legalized same sex unions or marriage, and notice the now Mandatory church participation in Denmark.
My mother taught my sibs and I an important lesson: when someone complains or comments on a certain behavior, if you didn’t or don’t do it, they weren’t even talking to you.
Or, to paraphrase Mr. Shakespeare, you protest too much. by your protests, you reveal a very narrow background of thought.
You need your own blog,too.
Posted by bnuckols | June 17, 2012, 5:23 AM