For lefties only: more evil, traditional conservatives or libertarians?

[mencken]

So any nation that sells oil as a large percent of its GDP cannot be socialist? What about Venezuela's policies is inconsistent with government ownership of the means of production?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So any nation that sells oil as a large percent of its GDP cannot be socialist? What about Venezuela's policies is inconsistent with government ownership of the means of production?

No country is socialist because in no country do the workers control the means for their own economic subsistence.

Scandinavia is closer to it than any other country in that it provides the vast majority of its population with universal, broad-based benefits that allow most workers to go through life without too much fear of lacking the most basic necessities, but it's still not the same as being truly in control of their own destinies. Venezuela offers clientelistic benefits to selected groups of supporters, which I guess is better than no benefit at all, but even further away to any sort of socialism.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reagan was an American conservative, but very little about the foremost television president was "traditional."

"Traditional" in this case clearly means "standard pretrump conservative". Learn to context(and subtext).

Just as oafish and unpleasant as ever, I see.

And your ego is inflated as usual. I guess knowing fancy words and western enlightenment philosophy can breed a pretty bad pretentious streak in some.

Reagan was an American conservative, but very little about the foremost television president was "traditional."

I'm curious (as I have my own definition here) as to how you would situate a "traditional conservative" in contrast to Reaganism, and at what point this communalism becomes actual egalitarianism.

Traditionalists are not market or technological utopians.
[/quote]

I'm going by what the asker of the question likely meant; asking a bunch of forum lefties about 1900's conservatism and modern libertarianism doesn't make too much sense, because they don't have a an interesting dichotomy like with modern social and fiscal conservatives(which is what most people today think of when they think "traditional conservatism", including politicians). The literal meaning of traditional would probably imply Metternich-style conservatism, but, shockingly, reading every word by their literal definition isn't a great way to understand things. You have a background much more filled with european "high culture" then most people on this forum, which is going to make your perception of certain things different.

Let's dispel with this fiction that fiscal rightists don't know what they are doing. They know exactly what they are doing. They adhere to Ayn Rand's vicious, hateful, egotistical ideology and want to promote a Darwinian society where only the "successful" (ie, the rich) survive. Writing it off as "naivety" is giving them far more credit than they deserve.

LOL, there are people like that(paul ryan, who's more reaganist anyway), but the vast majority aren't. Have you ever met a libertarian? Ever? "Wants the poor to suffer" is not the description I'd use. "Stupid political views they don't question, often with a little sprinkling of arrogence".

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

.I never know why the two idealogies are supposed to be at odds - I blame the political compass myself. I know libertarians all seem to follow the Silicon Valley hacker aesthetic, but a libertarian society would almost certainly resemble "traditionalist" values. Take one of the big reforms of early progressivism: the establishment of a secular, comprehensive and public education system, which largely replaced the early philanthropic and faith-run alternatives. If libertarians got their way, it would revert to the traditional way. Same with other public duties - the benevolent philanthropist and the Church are essential allies of the libertarian. The state should be reduced, in other words, to an army (most libertarians are nationalists, given they rather spectacularly have their cake and eat it to) funded by some regressive means. Even other 'traditional' pillars of society would need to be recruited, especially to calm unionism​ (after all, Cleveland the great classical liberal President brutally put down strikes): so the police again becomes a useful ally.

So the libertarian state would be a nationalist, but not imperialist or intervention society with a strong but purely internal military and police funded largely via regressive taxation and public services largely operated by fees, religion or charity. In other words: how America used to be.

[dead0man]

I've never met a libertarian that wanted to fund a military that is aimed inward and funded by regressive taxes.  Where do you meet these guys?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

They oppose military intervention and foroegn bases, so the military would be purely be internal.
They oppose progressive taxation and prefer recessive taxation.

Ergo...

[dead0man]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "internal".  I thought you were implying they would point the military at the American people, but I think I might have read you wrong there.  I'm not sure.  If you just mean keeping the US military on US soil, I'd agree with you, but also would assume you'd approve of that. No?  Also, there would be many fewer cops in a libertarian utopia as they would get rid of most of the laws that make cops and citizens have negative interactions.  Wouldn't that be a big plus too?

[they don't love you like i love you]

The funny thing is all Scandinavian countries except Sweden have right wing governments, and Sweden did until about two years ago.

[Santander]

Bernie Sanders would be center-right in Europe.

[This account no longer in use.]

Bernie Sanders would be center-right in Europe.

Don't be silly. In France, Bernie Sanders would be to the right of Le Pen, because as we all know Le Pen is a Moderate Hero who's just anti-immigration.

[RaphaelDLG]

On paper, I have WAY more in common with libertarians politically, and should be able to get along with them better, too.  My most recent FORMER political ideology (late teens) was "classical liberal/libertarian."

But the annoyance of the fundamentalist "jetpack" breed of libertarians is so strong and the selfish mendacity of Peter Thiel/Koch Bros so offensively and destructively high that I lean libertarians.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I prefer libertarians