Oh, don't fool yourself, there were plenty of direct and indirect ad hominems from both sides. "In addition to a poor argument I'm going to call you a poopy-pants." Pretty much just like the lefties, just in nicer suits.
Is that how low the bar has sunk??? "Well at least they weren't hurling personal insults." There were definitely uncivil undertones. I found the conservative side to be so smug, cold and robotic, that even though I probably considered the debate a tie on issues alone, I couldn't stand listening to them even on issues that I agreed with them on. How they went from physician-assisted suicide to accuse libertarians of not believing in feeding children. Ten years ago the title of this debate would not have been "Libertarian vs. Conservative", but "Democrat vs. Republican".... and I would have been the Democrat.
Bush started to define marriage look what happened the liberals lashed out and we are now where we are at. My problem with conservatives is it often leads to a church state. Church is personal and you want it to stay that way.
@John Dot Com That statement is very true considering the existence of lolbertarians who believe in free trade with other nations and open borders. If you don't agree with the those two points they call you a Marxist.
The problem is allowing Cato to represent the libertarian position. When it comes to data, they're great -- when it comes to debating, leave that to guys like Tom Woods, Jeffrey Tucker, Justin Raimondo, etc. Tom Woods in particular would have straight-up embarrassed the Heritage debaters.
Sure but Ben Shapiro would embarrass all those you mentioned. In reality we should see a Larry Elder vs Ben Shapiro for a proper libertarian vs conservative discussion.
@@justinattardi9503 LMFAO if you think Ben is anything close to being a good debater. He's good at manipulating the situation to make him seem smart: talk fast and never seem wrong (always seem confident even if you're unsure). I'm a Ben fan but even I recognize this.
@@painexotic3757 If what you say is true than it would be easy to for his opponent to point out the inaccuracies. That hasn't happened because Ben uses facts and evidence.
I bounce back and forth constantly between Libertarian and Conservative constantly. The more I read, the more Libertarian I become. The more I interact with people and live my life, the more conservative I become. The issue with Libertarianism is the inability to connect with people. I think you can see this in the closing arguments. L’s can just as much be speaking to an audience or yelling at the wall.
I also don't think the conservatives have looked up statistics regarding drug reform in their life. Move beyond what mommy and daddy told you growing up young conservatives....
The question about computer generated child pornography sounded like the libertarians side Aleppo moment lol. I mostly jest though, malice isn't my intent in this commentary. Libertarianism as a guiding philosophy is what should be strived for among the right leaning ideologies of personal liberty, but is lacking when practically applied as policy. The distinguishing line it appears is where government's role resides. Bravo to both teams for honest debate.
I feel as if the libertarian debaters weren't as skilled debaters as the conservative side. Still, I believe the conservatives pulled some stupid moves. The reference of Murray Rothbard and thoughts on the selling of children, the problem with this, the debaters on the libertarian side never stated children were property in their view. They also never endorsed, but in fact rejected anarchism as their philosophy. Rothbard was an anarchist. There are differences between certain philosophies under the libertarian tent of political philosophy.
I agree with much of what you said, but while anarchism may not be the position of these particular debaters, or even of Cato as a whole, it probably is the dominant position of most libertarians. So, if this is a libertarianism vs conservatism debate, I think it's fair to bring it up.
The social worker at my mom's nursing home waited until none of her family was around and until she was in the height of her pain and half out of her mind with chemo brain to present the option of suicide in Oregon. Thanks. They were DEFINITELY coercing her. The Conservatives are right on about this.
Ok, but all the arguments the conservatives made were anecdotal. They want to make wide-sweeping social policy because of individual cases like that. *And the libertarians were crystal clear that the patient must be of sound mind and clearly want that option.* Your mother's case does not sound like it met those conditions. But the conservatives kept twisting the libertarians' words. "Oh well you must not want parents to feed their children." Ridiculous! The bottom line is that you don't get to make sweeping social policy based on what-ifs and slippery slopes or enforce your personal moral judgement on society. I pray that neither of those smug twats is ever in as severe pain as your mother was in, only to have a government official tell them that they can't make decisions about their own body.
weallbfree The conservatives’ point was moreso that you have to think about the precedent a law sets and how it might progress in time. As they said, the lawmakers did not intend for the law to be used on children. In my opinion, the conservatives are right to question the consequences of allowing doctors the power to intentionally kill in addition to save. We can’t rely on traditional values when the country in general is shifting ever more left. I mean we see op-eds in high profile publications defending pedophilia, for example. That’s not to say that most Americans even remotely support that, but the fact that folks holding that position can even find multiple mainstream platforms to defend it shows how we’re shifting in an absolutely bizarre direction. Not to mention that they’re a little optimistic about how overwhelmingly stressed out the average hospital worker is and how unsympathetic to death you can become when you deal with it everyday, and when you’re tremendously overworked and dealing with hysterical patients. This is a good example of a situation in which you STRONGLY need to evaluate your quest for an ideal world with its unintended consequences. The libertarians are speaking idealistically and the conservatives are speaking more practically. I do sympathize with people who are suffering, but I don’t think we can sacrifice the internal consistency and integrity of our nation’s core values to help. There must be some other way.
Sounds like everyone knew the questions before asked them and had "prepared" statements. They just sort of "read" AT each other. Style was too rigid to call it a debate.
Yeah, but I can't imagine it would be better without prepared statements. There would just be more mistakes made and it shows something else when they are this prepared and yet the conservatives still made the drastic mistakes they did
Anyone who actually believes in the principle of non-aggression - the underlying premise of libertarianism - must be an anarchist, as it is logically impossible to oppose the initiation of violence while supporting any form of ‘government,’ which is nothing but violence. - Larken Rose
The problem is, you cannot extrapolate out all human action and societal organization from one single principle. To put it simply, there are other values that matter. In fact, to even have liberty one has to be relatively safe from attacks on your person or property, either from foreign powers or common criminals. This requires that we have police, courts and military. The free market can only exist when physical force and coercion are taken out of the equation.
The conservative side was much more polished and ready for this debate that the Cato side. I still can't help but notice that they never answered the question of moral authority. I don't deny that prostitution and drug usage is immoral (which is the main reason why I don't visit prostitutes or use drugs), but so what? As far as the State is concerned, what moral right to do they have to tell me what I can or can't put in my body? What moral right do they have to tell me I can't make a business transaction with another consenting individual, regardless if that transaction is sexual or not? The conservative side never answered this question and was never forced to -- probably because the Cato side themselves were unwilling to admit that our rights come from a divine source (and therefore are reduced to trying to defend human freedom strictly on human authority).
I think you mean "in your opinion, prostitution and drug use are immoral". There are far better reasons to avoid prostitutes and drug use than morality. I don't think they're "unwilling to admit" so much as outright reject the notion, as they well should lacking any evidence for such a thing.
They made a good point about the nuances of drug use. You can’t speak about it as if it’s functionally interchangeable with something entirely neutral like watching a movie on Netflix. Some drugs can completely ruin entire communities because thr addiction is so strong and it can happen in one use. And what of all thr crime that is committed simply to secure another fix? What of all the parents who are completely unable to care for their children because of their addictions? What about all the spent needles littering the streets of San Francisco? The state has a duty to protect life whether you like it or not, and drug use has a hefty cost on life. The two best ways to address this are to secure the border and to take no mercy on traffickers and dealers so as to decentivize both the supply and demand. I’m not sure about prostitution, but my guess is that it has to do with internal consistency with the regard to life and specifically distinguishing life from property. You necessarily turn humans into property (you can argue ‘service,’ but the ‘service’ is indistinguishable from the property when you literally are selling the use of your body). I can see why it would be fundamentally opposed to philosophically blurring those lines.
The question regarding the current disputes between China and US is a really complicated one that has everything to do with intellectual property theft and unfair practices in China rather than a pure trade issue, in fact the heritage foundation is at the forefront of the battle supporting the Trump administration.
I'm on the conservative side for the many of the ideals, but in practice, their foreign policy acting as the world police is only going to bankrupt the country and restrict free trade leading to higher prices for its citizens. Conservatives say they are afraid of big government, but when in power they act mostly to increase its scope and power. The neoconservatives are run my the military industrial complex and seem to never put any limits or reforms on military spending. Even after the DOD when audited is just "missing" billions of dollars of funding. When you leave it up to government to set rules, then every new person in government can redraw that line which could be a disaster if you get the wrong person in there which you inevitably will. Also, the values of conservatives change over time, so why set up society where there is no room for changing values over time, however I think if they could permanently define their values like the right to life from conception to natural death, that would be a good start, but I do think these need to be defined better.
The girl references Jim Crowe Laws, then claims they were conservative policies. Ok, first off Missy, those were Democratic laws. Second, the Republican Conservative Party ended slavery, the KKK, Jim Crowe Segregation, and passed the Civil Rights Act, which was a policy of Dwight D Eisenhower.
You're conflating party with ideology. Straight party/ideological split is a relatively recent development. You're also ignoring the Southern Strategy of the late 60's when people like Klansmen and their ilk largely changed their party affiliation from D to R. There was no "Republican Conservative" party at the time of slavery, Jim Crowe, etc. You forgot TR created the national park system while a Republican and Nixon created the EPA. Neither has anything to do with party or conservatism.
@@arbitrarysequence Congress created those things. Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Teddy Roosevelt signed those bills into law, promoting these ideas as worth doing. Just as every recession since the 1930's has started under a Democrat congressional majority, irrespective of the party in the White House. It is Congress that sets these policies--not the President.
I think that rather than having a debate between conservatives and libertarians, we should rather have a debate within different libertarian factions. While followers of libertarianism share the same basic principles, they can differ from each other in vital points. I say this as a libertarian myself. It really upsets me to see libertarianism portrayed as a monolithic ideology.
58 minutes: the assumption that American values are always expressed through American laws and regulations. What? We may obey the laws but that isn't out of reverence for principles. It is out of fear of what happens when we break a law we do not agree with.
“Laws were torn down that...” no, laws were INTRODUCED that destroyed the family and fabric of society. Then he says “conservatism defends liberty” but doesn’t exactly explain how
when it comes to drug use it should be regulated Fresno has a serious drug problem when it comes to crystal meth especially why should some future kids of a future generation be exposed to drugs vs making them hard to find and get ahold of so they don't have to got through a life of addiction they cant break
If you think it about it, not really. There is no "intrinsic" liberty. In practice you have only as much liberty as you can secure. That is, a right is only relevant if there is some party in existence that can enforce and protect it. In order for everyone to have liberty at the same time, we need to agree on what these liberties are (laws), create a state and give it the power to justly enforce those, often times through force. In a free society, the first thing its members must do is actually forfeit some portion of their own freedom (i.e pledge to follow written laws, and allow the state to use force in an attempt to enforce them).
There is no one version of conservatism. There is no one version of libertarianism. So a conservatism vs. libertarianism debate seems ambiguous at best. At least with conservatism the various versions can be clearly delineated and defined. However, I don't know if such a thing is possible with libertarianism. It is so vague that the concept of "limited government" can have so many different meanings to so many different people. Only the anarcho-capitalists and minarchists have clearly defined ideas. Every other libertarian is on his/her own to define what they mean by limited government.
I would lean more libertarian if there wasn't such a massive welfare state. Also as a conservative I do recognize are military spending is far too much waste in money and resources. I just think immigration, welfare, corporate lobbying, government itself needs to be reformed. Also its seems to me that the libertarian viewpoint is reasoned based with no religious morality. The founding was based on Jerusalem and Athens. We need both.
Libertarians are for the complete abolishment of the welfare state. Where we tend to lose many conservatives(especially baby boomers) in that regard, is that abolishment extends to programs such as social security and medicare, as those programs are just plain ole' socialism. 😉 Under Libertarianism, we would completely remove government interference in the free markets, which would largely make corporate lobbying a worthless endeavor on the company's part, as the government simply wouldn't have the power to pull the strings for companies. As the adage goes, the only reason that corporations can buy government favors is because the government has favors to sell. Again, where we lose a lot of conservatives(not all); remember when companies such as GM and Chrysler, or financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, received bailout money during the last recession? Yea, they don't get that money under a Libertarian administration. Those companies made poor fiscal decisions, and they'd simply be shit out of luck. As Libertarians, we love capitalism, but we absolutely detest cronyism. With no welfare state, immigration issues would largely self correct themselves. If you come to the US, you're gonna have to work, and make you're own path in life...no freebies. That said, it should also be noted that many of the immigration issues that the US has faced over the last couple of decades, have largely been created by our government's war on drug. US drug policy has resulted in very lucrative profit margins for the sale of drugs on the black market here, which in turn has resulted in the rise of drug cartels all throughout Mexico and Latin America, and these cartels have largely destabilized that entire region. As far as religion goes, many Libertarians are practicing Christians. The reason why we tend to keep religious viewpoints separate from official Libertarian Party policy, is because you tend to run into the age old problem of "who's right?". Even when in Christianity, you have various sects that can have wildly differing opinions on certain things. Mormon doctrine differs from Catholic doctrine, and both differ from what Evangelicals believe. Thus, we leave religious beliefs to be a personal matter. All of this helps to ensure that everyone's right to freedom of religion is kept sacred.
the philosophy from Athens that influences libertarianism was non religious thought from Aristotle and Socrates………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….the Bible may have influenced it but to some degree but enlightenment thought can be viewed from a secular perspective as far as natural law
@@niksterrr1110 Well yeah... they want it to be illegal because marriage is a religious ceremony that is preformed in many religions. Being gay is considered a sin and government going against what the religion wants IS wrong. I think they can get married but not recognized by the church
@@niksterrr1110 All Im saying is that people dont want the government in certain things such as religion and forcing rules that they have to obey that go against their religion
@@poptartz911 You should read a book called "Marriage, a history" by Stephanie Coontz. Marriage is much more complex than conservatives imply and has changed countless times over the centuries. Marriage for religious reasons is only ONE type of marriage.
I thought the conservatives were more polished debaters, but I was only with them on the military and immigration questions, and even on the military question I thought libertarians made a better case.
46:20 how can I get my hands on this tinnitus treatment? Because the VA tells me it’s untreatable yet now I hear it’s 100% treatable? Also, it’s more than just a “tingling in the ear” 😂 it’s a loud, incessant, and incredibly disruptive ringing in the ear
If I am not mistaken, responsibility is missing from the libertarian point of view even though they both agree on freedom equally. But unlimited freedom of an individual will infringe upon the freedom of another which is self-defeating for the libertarian.
“The State is the invention of the evil one: that is why it never works well, that is why it always generates so much damage and so much death, and so much poverty. Whereas, when the free market system is applied, which is God's system: everything prospers”. - Javier G. Milei, argentinian libertarian.
Factores De Poder. (2019, November 6). JAVIER MILEI: VIVA LA LIBERTAD CARAJO | PARTE 2 | CONTRA PODER 3.0 | FACTORES DE PODER [Video]. RU-vid. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cRXNJ__O7pM.html [15:16]
The conservative side came off as so aloof, smug, and callous that though I thought the debate was a tie, but the libertarian side came out tons more likable. This proves the point that *the best ideas don't always win, you have to be able to make those ideas resonate. By that standard, the conservative side failed miserably* and that is why despite (mostly) better ideas, Conservatives still continue to lose the culture war, and why election after election, conservatives lose the battle because they fail to make their ideas resonate with a voter base that is at least on social issues moving further toward the center-left. They just do not learn. I hope neither of those two ever wind up in a situation where they're going through medical hell and they are looking for ANYTHING that could give them relief, only to have an even bigger asshole tell them that "Yes I know that marijuana could ease your suffering, and although I can't imagine the pain you're going through, you must be kept alive against your will because *MAINTAINING MY 'ORDERED' SOCIETY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU BEING ALLOWED TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION TO ALLEVIATE YOUR SUFFERING* ." Mon Dieu!! I lost a whole lot of respect for Heritage foundation here, and this is exhibit A as to why as much as I despise the Progressive left, I will not ever call myself a conservative as long as this type of nanny-state antiquated thinking prevails.
Conservatives aren’t going anywhere hence why it is a bankrupt ideology. It’s irritating when conservatives especially preach fiscal austerity yet never can walk the walk. The Republican Party is now the Party of Trumpism and neoconservatives. No hope left, I suspect this is also annoying some fiscal conservative who are strictly constitutionalist.
Conservatives are against these drugs being available on demand, and not against it’s use by hospitals. That being said, the success of marijuana in pain relief is debatable, as different hospitals came to different conclusions on their observations.
@@trafledrakel7118 I used to struggle with the question, "Well if you're going to legalize drugs, that would have to include ALL drugs, even hard drugs, right?" And I would push back against that, contrary to my own philosophy. Then I realized the answer. If, say, cocaine was decriminalized at a FEDERAL level, it would then simply be up to STATES to make their own laws. And that's really the point. Conservatives can be great hypocrites when it comes to Constitutional freedoms. I fully support the right to religion, to guns, obviously I'm a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist. But it seems to me that the conservative desire for Constitutional freedom ends when they find something they personally dislike. "Freedom for me but not for thee." The Constitution does not give the Federal government authority to decide what people put in their own bodies. The right to decide drug legislation is clearly given to the states under the Tenth Amendment. End of story. So the way I argue it, the efficacy of -marijuana- cannabis for pain is almost moot. The government has no *authority* to prohibit its use, and that's the end of it. The left will leave your medicine cabinet alone but raid your bank account. The conservatives seem to have the reverse philosophy and they're both wrong. The libertarians, on this issue at least, are the only ones who get it right - who understand that the true test of freedom is to stand up even for rights that you personally disagree with.
@@tomservo75 that’s what all the video’s debate comes up to: what is more important. If freedom should have limits, or if it’s freedom for the sake of freedom. For libertarians, it looks like freedom is sacred, untouchable, the one thing that can never be limited by anything, even when the order and growth of society demands a tactic that limits it. For conservatives, freedom is a necessity that brings us to the goal, which is a better society to live in. For libertarians, freedom is itself the goal. Like it or not, legalizing drugs would make more zones face what Northern Ohio County and other zones had to face. People are dying from heroine. Legalization would, like it or not, bring more people to experiment it and get addicted in the first use. Like it or not, what is forbidden or not do set the rules for some people’s minds. If heroine is on display in a store, some young people will buy it. The fact that today you have to buy in a black market is enough a deterrent for these people. I don’t care so much that this is less freedom. Not everything has to be about freedom. It’s not about freedom. It’s about lives.
Haha... When you get stumped on a question, act indignant for having been asked it and respond with sarcasm. Hm... An entertaining debate. I wonder if the adults being placed to the right was coincidental? My question ended with proper markings...🇺🇸
Wow, I lost a lot of respect for the Heritage Foundation here... Normally when I see liberal vs. conservative debates, I usually root conservative, but although I think the conservatives were the more skilled debaters here, they did not win me over. It's a shame we have to have divides like this because I think about 90% of our policies we have in common. And there are some issues, like national defense, where I do side with the conservatives. But I've felt that with the Democrats going so far left, there is such a vacuum in the middle 50% of the political spectrum, that void could be easily filled by the Libertarians. If we could put aside these tiny social differences, we could work together in a way that would set the Progressive movement back 50 years. But the Conservatives are too out of touch when it comes to social policy. Same-sex marriage is a fact. Cannabis legalization is inevitable. Conservatives lose the culture war because of their dogmatic insistence on antiquated and failed policies like the War on Drugs. What good is preventing drug abuse when you can't bring aboard middle Americans, who then get sucked into the leftist "free stuff" machine and we end up a socialist country, huh? Really, we need to work together here. Look at the state of our country. *The Democrats have taken the House because of the failure of the right to connect with moderate voters. We are one Democrat President away from becoming a socialist country, and those twerps are concerned about whether a gay married couple smokes a joint in their own home??!! My God, wake up!!*
Libertarianism is not a Constitutional value, not one handed down through the tradition of the British government and common law, and not one which withstands history's scrutiny. Community, a foundational principle of American government, is not merely transactional, steeped in mystery among our little Platoons. Not recognizing the principle of social interaction and unity around values rather than non-interventionism leads to a disunited society or a lack of society in totality. Libertarianism is the idea to fondle as a high schooler but has no historical experience to show it's worth anything more than a philosophical extreme ipso facto.
@J P I think you confuse smaller government as a difference between libertarians and conservatives. We both agree that less government intervention is best, both communally and individually, but libertarianism's object is not the social well-being of society, but the freedom of an individual in all aspects of their life in accordance with the no-harm principle. Social well-being, the libertarians claim, is a consequence of said individualism, but that is where the founders, alongside conservatives, disagree. For references, read Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, Tocqueville's Democracy in America: On Individualism, and any of the founders. The closest you will find is the aged Jefferson who wants extremely small government, BUT for the purpose of an agrarian society which promotes community (something he does not see in commercialistic states.) The social conservatives were called Federalists, the libertarians were called anti-Federalists. Read Patrick Henry, George Mason, or Richard Henry Lee if you want non-interventionism. Libertarianism is the simplification of a childish moral system that urges a "dont bother me" society. The goal of government is not it's own abolishment nor an absolute limitation of its power, but "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of liberty." If you're seriously interested in learning the role of a state and its authority in promoting the general welfare, read Aquinas' On Law (Summa).
@J P I'm disappointed your response misaligns the core of the question at hand. Firstly, my views on conservatism are, in fact, inspired by the 18th century English scholar, Sir Edmund Burke, and the legal theorist, Sir William Blackstone, not the populist Republican of Ronald Reagan. Further, I ask for any Framer who espoused the libertarian mindset. Madison desired a lifelong presidency; Jefferson wanted to maintain the aristocracy; Washington wanted a vast centralization of government; Hamilton literally founded the national bank; and Adams looked favorably upon monarchy. The idea that any of these men sought to organize society in a libertarian framework is absurd and unfounded. There are two questions which arise that need answering: 1) Direct democracy being the purest governmental representation of every individual's desire, I fail to see how you would avoid support for such a system which is conducive to the tyranny of the majority. 2) This is perhaps the difference between yourself and mine, namely that I think human rights exist in so far as humans have inherent dignity. The negative rights model fails to recognize the root of rights, and proclaims them to be sacrosanct ad absurdum. For libertarians to be logically coherent, they must either espouse anarchy as the highest good or recognize that rights have limits. If the latter, and more agreeable of the two, the question consequently arises: Is liberty an end in itself, and thus a moral virtue? The quick answer is no, liberty has limits because it is a means; otherwise, it would be the highest moral expression of virtue to forego those passions to care for your children and exercise your bodily autonomy without the oppression of the needs of them. That is the prime example in which moral duty overrides your individual liberty, and I ask you to find anyone who wouldn't desire justice for a parent who refuses to feed their children on that basis. Now, if you are a utilitarian, the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain are your primary virtues, thus satisfying your hyper individualized appetite.Otherwise, you're being an inconsistent libertarian.
@J P Like I referenced before, Jefferson in his later years is as close as you will get to finding a libertarian among the founders. He is the most "libertarian" out of all of the Federalists, and he is by no stretch remotely a libertarian. I'm glad you found a quote though. I can't quite reconcile libertarian with Constitutional, as per Jefferson's quote. He is literally saying he has a philosophy of rights completely independent of law. I'm also supremely glad to hear you're not an anarchist nor a Rousseauian, following you're agreeing that rights have limits. However, you fail to distinguish yourself from them in your conception of negative rights which logically leads to those extremes which neglect the fundamental structures of society (the role of duty, obligation, and morality as per my 'parents refusing to feed their children' example.) This is a fundamental failure in a negative rights-based system. I can quote Tocqueville if that would be helpful. Furthermore, it seems you have a rather odd perspective of conservatives. You can quote the war on drugs infinitely, and I will agree with you. But this is all because we have hindsight. Narcotics and extreme stimulants are addictive, and science is only now beginning to tell us the positive ways in which we can deal with that. Leaving druggies on the street is hardly a solution, especially in the communal, familial, or societal perspectives. And I hate to burst your economic bubble, but most free-market economists (Hayek, Friedman, Mises, etc) provide a social safety net due to quick fluctuations in the market. I can sympathize with your feeling of wanting to be left alone, wanting absolute bodily autonomy, wanting to live your life however you please. But this notion is incompatible with the formation of a lasting society. Negative rights don't hold a country together, values and traditions do. Man is not an isolated animal, but a social, rational being.
@J P I just have one request: answer the family example I gave two responses ago. THAT is the divide between us. I don't want government meddling with $ or the economy; I don't want executive orders and actions as they are currently used or intended; I don't want judicial activism; I don't want government in healthcare; I don't want government in education; I don't want government in speech. On those things and many more, the small government tendency in the both of us manifests itself outwardly. The only difference is that a libertarian mindset places liberty above the dignity of the individual. We could argue morals all day, but at the end of that day, I predict we would still be at an impasse because, on that point, we fundamentally disagree. Liberty is a means to an end; otherwise it would be desirable in every circumstance (which it's not as per my family example.) PLEASE, please explain on your end
That sort of reasoning leads to the worst atrocities imaginable. Society is not a thing unto itself, not an existent entity. Individuals are real flesh and blood. Putting the concept of society before the individual is backwards: society serves individuals, not the other way around.
Fuck collectivism. It is the most immoral and destructive doctrine ever conceived. Every version of collectivism in history has led to the destruction of liberty, safety and prosperity.
