H ere is the clearest, most concise, most straightforward explanation of conservatives, liberals, and libertarians you’ll ever hear.
Conservatives, in the broadest sense, believe there is a natural order of things. If you go along with the natural order, things work well; if you violate the natural order, they don’t. For example, there is a natural order for families; if a man marries a woman and they take primary responsibility for raising their children, that yields the best results. If a man marries a man and they let the state raise their child, you’ll have a dysfunctional family.
If you want a well-functioning family, community, or church, the individuals must recognize this natural order and live by it. In other words, if you want a good society, the people in it must be conservative.
Unfortunately, modern conservatives suffer the same flaw as liberals; they are statists. That is, they believe in using the power of the state to force everyone to behave the way they want. A prime example of this is marriage. Conservatives want to preserve the institution of marriage as it was created by God — marriage is between a man and a woman.
This is good, but they go about it all wrong. Marriage is between a man, a woman, and God. It is a religious institution, not a government institution, and the state should have no say in the matter, any more than it says who can be a priest, or who can be baptized.
Once you kick God out of the equation and bring in the state, you violate the natural order of things. In other words, statism and conservatism are incompatible. In other other words, in order to be consistently conservative, conservatives must not be statists — they must be liberty-oriented, or “libertarian.” Otherwise, they can’t properly implement conservative principles in their community — they turn it into a police state, like the one we have now.
Conservatism describes your relationship to others in the family, church, or community. Libertarianism describes your relationship to coercive rulers — a.k.a., government. Conservatism and libertarianism are flip sides of the same coin. Libertarians must be conservative in order to maintain a functional community. Conservatives must be libertarian with respect to the power of government, in order to maintain liberty.
Modern Liberals are socialists. They believe the state owns all people and whatever they produce. That’s why they are such big fans of compulsory state education — they believe “society” owns the child, his mind, and his future potential. At the very least, they believe the government has the final say in the child’s well-being, so they insist on “educating him for his own good.” This is a big lie — the government doesn’t educate, it trains kids to be good subjects of the state. Tyrants always seize control of education.
Liberals also believe they should control what people do with their businesses, their property, and even their own bodies. In short, they make slaves of everyone. That’s what it means to say that you have to pay a portion of your production to the state in the form of taxes. It’s forced labor, and you’re the slave. Basically, liberals are slaveholders. That’s what socialism is.
Sadly, to the extent conservatives go along with this, they have the same flaw in their thinking. In a very real sense, the only difference between conservatives and liberals is what they want to use the power of government for. Broadly, the liberal wants to use the power of government compulsion in economic matters, like welfare, medical care, and employment, and the conservative wants to use it in social matters, like drug use, gambling, and marriage. Neither one of them consistently fights for liberty.
Libertarians are primarily liberty-oriented. That is, they seek liberty first, in all areas, social and economic. This is the fundamental principle on which the United States was founded. The founders believed that the only legitimate function of government was to preserve individual liberty. Back then, this philosophy was called liberalism, but it’s not like modern liberalism, which is a statist philosophy completely antithetical to liberty. The founders’ philosophy is now called classical liberalism, and it is very similar to libertarianism, but there are differences.
The main difference between classical liberalism and modern-day libertarianism is this: The classical liberals believed that it was possible to limit the power of government by writing the rules of government in a written constitution; but today we understand that men are too thirsty for power to pay attention to a piece of paper. They will steal freedom from those they rule, no matter what a constitution says.
We can’t just live our lives in peace and mind our own business. If we do, corrupt politicians will steal our liberties while we’re not paying attention. That is precisely what has happened; the government that rules us today is absolutely not the one you read about in the Constitution.
Libertarians are mindful of what Andrew Jackson said: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
We can save this country, but we need to relearn the principles of liberty that have been forgotten. For this, you need The Truth About Liberty.
The Truth About Liberty
Author: Manny Edwards
Softback: 256 pages
Publisher: TAL Press
Language: English
ISBN: 978-0-9836420-0-8
Format: 5-1/5 X 8-1/2
For Liberty,
Manny Edwards
Loading ...
I'm not sure if your explanation was meant to be serious or not. I find it hard to believe that you really see the world in those terms. Liberals as slave holders, hum. Has it never occured to you that perhaps liberals just feel that for a society to function it is incumbent upon the state (the extension of the people) to provide an atmosphere and playing field that is fair for all. While I would agree that many liberal causes may at times be misguided or implimented poorly, to suggest that liberals have a desire to own you is simply an attempt to demonize them. There is a good reason that orthodox libertarianism is not the view of the vast majority of people in the world, because in practice it doesn't work. No more than orthodox socialism works. The reality is that in order for a society to function you must have a bit of both. I am happy as a citizen to pay a portion of my income in the form of a tax imposed by the state (the people) to secure certain benefits that as an individual are unattainable. I want those fireman to come when my house in on fire. I like the roads my taxes help pay for. I am greatful to Teddy Roosevelt who recognized that in order to protect wonders like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon for future generations it was necessary for the government (the people) to protect that environement. It was the government that provided free vaccinations to end smallpox. It was government that gave us NASA and tang
. It is government that funds a great deal of the health reasearch that individuals can't or wouldn't provide on their own. In almost every case you sight as a government attempt to steal your liberty, it is exactly your loss of liberty that the governement is trying to protect. An educated populace is a more prosperous and free populous, public eductation is the peoples attempt to provide that liberty to all. How would you propose every child get an education? The civil rights act is the governements attempt to protect the liberty of all men, not just the white ones, to participate in commerce and not face institutional discrimination. If we follow your approach we'd still have slavery, or at best Jim Crow. I am greatful to Nixon and the government for the Clean Water Act. In case you missed it, without it you FREE businesses were setting rivers on fire. Your arguments all simply fall flat whenever held up against the historical record. No governement at all and you have anarchy! Too much and, i agree, you have socialism. I beg you to concede that perhaps the real solution lies somewhere in the middle.
I do agree with one comment you made. Marriage (as defined by most Christians) has no place being regulated by government. The term marriage has meant different things throughout history, and in my opinion is more a spirtitual pact made between two people with God, than a legal one. The problem is that marriage does come with certain legal privileages in our society. If you wish to take marriage outside of the government sphere then you must replace it with a legal equivalent. Civil unions serve that purpose. A civil union would represent a legal contract between two parties that could be defined and enforced by the government. Not being a religious contract would also enable gays, or even polygamists to enter into civil unions without the controversy around marriage. As a libertarian this solution should make the most sence. Religious minded people can continue to define marriage within the confines of the churches walls as they see fit and individual liberty for everyone else is preserved.
I wanted to post you this very small word to help say thanks a lot over again over the precious things you’ve featured above. It’s quite unbelievably generous of people like you to offer unhampered what exactly a few people could possibly have supplied for an ebook to make some bucks for themselves, mostly seeing that you might well have tried it in case you decided. These concepts as well acted like the good way to fully grasp most people have the identical desire similar to my personal own to see way more related to this matter. I believe there are several more enjoyable sessions in the future for people who find out your site.
So how do you explain Libertarians like Ron Paul and his son in government? Hell Ron wants to be president himself.