Question for Libertarians...

[nclib]

Are your social values more in line with liberals or conservatives?

John Dibble had said that Libertarians tend to have socially conservative values even if they favor social liberty. I wonder why Libertarians would be more likely to be socially conservative. (though perhaps it would explain why Libertarians tend to emphasize economic issues over social issues.)

[John Dibble]

Well, this might be difficult to explain, but I'll do my best.

My personal values are more conservative leaning, though I do have my liberal points.

Now, Libertarians are for personal responsibility - that is, for every action, there is a consequence, and for your actions you must be the one to deal with those consequences. Positive actions usually have positive consequences, negative ones have negative consequences. Now, we're for people making their own decisions, but those people also have to be subject to whatever consequences there are from those decisions - if you do something stupid, don't expect everyone else to clean up your mess for you, that's your job. For this reason, we are in line with many conservative values - many of us don't do drugs, have promiscuous unprotected sex, or things like that, because obviously those have negative consequences that we would rather not be forced to deal with. If someone else does those things, it's their business as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and since it's their responsibility to deal with the negative consequences we don't care - let them punish themselves, it's not our job to protect them from their own stupidity. Some people are willing to deal with negative consequences of certain actions - if the value of the action to them is high enough to outweigh the negative consequences, who are we to say they can't?

We don't see any reason to deny other people choices that contradict our own values so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, because if we did it would give others the excuse to forbid actions we value being able to take just because they disagree with them. If you respect others enough to let them make their own decisions, the hope is that they will respect you enough to do the same.

[Bono]

I'm very culturaly conservative, yes. I think Switzerland is the best example of how a libertarian society would give origin to a socially conservative culture, without government cohercion.

[John Dibble]

I'm very culturaly conservative, yes. I think Switzerland is the best example of how a libertarian society would give origin to a socially conservative culture, without government cohercion.

Just a sub-comment on this for nclib - it is safe to say that if you see a crackhead living on the street, and then compare him to a person who does not do drugs, has a stable job, and has a nice family he is cherishes, you obviously see that the latter is prosperous(at least in comparison). Now, who would you rather be like - The crackhead who gives in to short term pleasures, but on the whole does not have many, or the working man, who though he has to endure a job(which who knows, he might enjoy his job) has many pleasures that are far more satisfying? The working man of course - he's obviously better off, at least to me, so I'd act more like him so I could prosper as well.

[David S]

Libertarians believe in freedom. That means having the right to make your own decisions about your own life, so long as you don't harm someone else. Most of us are smart enough to realize that many of those choices are self-destructive, so we voluntarily avoid those things. Personally I don't gamble or use drugs, or prostitutes. And gay marriage is repulsive to me. However, if someone else wants to do those things thats their business.

[Richard]

Are your social values more in line with liberals or conservatives?

John Dibble had said that Libertarians tend to have socially conservative values even if they favor social liberty. I wonder why Libertarians would be more likely to be socially conservative. (though perhaps it would explain why Libertarians tend to emphasize economic issues over social issues.)

Many people tell me I'm a libertarian, even though I have a blue avatar, so I'll answer your question in this manner:

- drugs:  I will not, and do not, do any drugs.  I recognize others' rights to do it, but I'm not going to destroy my life like that.

- same sex marriage: I do not believe in same sex marriages.  Marriage is for a man and a woman to start a family.  I hold pretty much the Greek philosophy.  Many Greek men had relationships with other men, but they never redefined marriage.  I don't believe in doing that either.

- gun control:  I'm against any gun control.  It is a civil right.

- prostitutes: I would never use one, never have, and never will.

[The Duke]

My own interpretation, though I'm not libertarian myself.

The libertarian woulc not and could not be a libertarian if he ws not conservative in his own values.  Their philosophy is based on the idea that if everyone was rational and responsible, libetarainism would work.  Because they are almost exclusively rational and responsible, they presume all people must be able to do the same and therefore libertarianism can work given a sufficeintly conditioned populace.

If they did not believe in these conservative values, they'd not believe their philosophy was practical, and would not advocate it.  Indeed, an irresponsible, selfish, or unvirtuous people could not exist long in a libertarian society, so this makes some sense that the libertraians themselves would advocate the liberty to do things they themselves refrain from doing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, this might be difficult to explain, but I'll do my best.

My personal values are more conservative leaning, though I do have my liberal points.

Now, Libertarians are for personal responsibility - that is, for every action, there is a consequence, and for your actions you must be the one to deal with those consequences. Positive actions usually have positive consequences, negative ones have negative consequences. Now, we're for people making their own decisions, but those people also have to be subject to whatever consequences there are from those decisions - if you do something stupid, don't expect everyone else to clean up your mess for you, that's your job. For this reason, we are in line with many conservative values - many of us don't do drugs, have promiscuous unprotected sex, or things like that, because obviously those have negative consequences that we would rather not be forced to deal with. If someone else does those things, it's their business as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and since it's their responsibility to deal with the negative consequences we don't care - let them punish themselves, it's not our job to protect them from their own stupidity. Some people are willing to deal with negative consequences of certain actions - if the value of the action to them is high enough to outweigh the negative consequences, who are we to say they can't?

We don't see any reason to deny other people choices that contradict our own values so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, because if we did it would give others the excuse to forbid actions we value being able to take just because they disagree with them. If you respect others enough to let them make their own decisions, the hope is that they will respect you enough to do the same.

What about gay marriage?

[John Dibble]

What about gay marriage?

Well, the official libertarian response would be that 'the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, it should only give out civil unions'. The meaning behind that is that marriage is really a spiritual and religious institution, so it should be left to individuals to determine what it means to them. Civil unions would have all the benefits of current marriage contracts, but no religious implication - basically what civil marriage really is now, because the state doesn't care whether you're in love or if you're serious abou it to marry you, it's really just a change of the word so we aren't redefining 'marriage' for anyone(they can come up with their own definition for all I care).

Now, since that's somewhat unlikely, most of us are fine with putting same sex marriage into the current system - we don't see how it hurts anyone, so regardless of our personal opinions we think it should be allowed. However, churches should be able to refuse marrying anyone they don't wish to marry, but justices of the peace would be required to do so for any valid couple.

[Nym90]

My own interpretation, though I'm not libertarian myself.

The libertarian woulc not and could not be a libertarian if he ws not conservative in his own values. Their philosophy is based on the idea that if everyone was rational and responsible, libetarainism would work. Because they are almost exclusively rational and responsible, they presume all people must be able to do the same and therefore libertarianism can work given a sufficeintly conditioned populace.

If they did not believe in these conservative values, they'd not believe their philosophy was practical, and would not advocate it. Indeed, an irresponsible, selfish, or unvirtuous people could not exist long in a libertarian society, so this makes some sense that the libertraians themselves would advocate the liberty to do things they themselves refrain from doing.

Well, it seems like a lot of libertarians don't claim that their philosophy will be the best possible one for the world as a whole; it's more a matter of principle. I've seen some libertarians on this board come out and say that they don't necessarily think their philosophy will result in the bets possible world, but that they don't think it's moral to do things that benefit society if they harm individual rights.

At least that's my take on it, feel free to correct me, Libertarians, if I've gotten the wrong impression. But the overall betterment of the world as a whole seems not to be a priority.

[John Dibble]

My own interpretation, though I'm not libertarian myself.

The libertarian woulc not and could not be a libertarian if he ws not conservative in his own values. Their philosophy is based on the idea that if everyone was rational and responsible, libetarainism would work. Because they are almost exclusively rational and responsible, they presume all people must be able to do the same and therefore libertarianism can work given a sufficeintly conditioned populace.

If they did not believe in these conservative values, they'd not believe their philosophy was practical, and would not advocate it. Indeed, an irresponsible, selfish, or unvirtuous people could not exist long in a libertarian society, so this makes some sense that the libertraians themselves would advocate the liberty to do things they themselves refrain from doing.

Well, it seems like a lot of libertarians don't claim that their philosophy will be the best possible one for the world as a whole; it's more a matter of principle. I've seen some libertarians on this board come out and say that they don't necessarily think their philosophy will result in the bets possible world, but that they don't think it's moral to do things that benefit society if they harm individual rights.

At least that's my take on it, feel free to correct me, Libertarians, if I've gotten the wrong impression. But the overall betterment of the world as a whole seems not to be a priority.

Well, with any philosophy you have pros and cons. The world will never be perfect - anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or stupid. I just think that libertarianism will have the most pros.

I do agree at least somewhat with what Ford said. And I agree with what you said. Much of what we advocate is principle, others practical, but usually it's a combination of both.

Of course, I do think libertarianism would help result in a more personally responsible society. Why? Because it does the worst possible thing to people who do stupid things - it leaves them to the consequences of their own actions.