Republican Religiophobia

[De Selby]

I think of the authoritarian libertarian as someone who uses the language of libertarians to justify invasive and controlling policies.  Sometimes, they actually make sense, which is why there are enough such political beings to warrant a new label. 

I think there are mainly two distinct types:  Those who see their own authoritarian policies as "reasonable protections of the liberty of the people", and those who have transformed liberty from a description of how and to what extent individuals are restrained by outside forces, into an icon that is distinct from government and society.

The first is mentioned by Mr. Tactical Pants.  With MTP's example, smoking bans, they would talk about "freedom from intrusion" for non-smokers who might inhale second hand smoke.  Not entirely unreasonable, but hardly libertarian.  And they genuinely believe that this is liberty-to be free from all those annoying things that they see other people doing.

The second type tend to confuse liberty, which is actually more a procedural issue with respect to the state, with a tangible object.  This mystical "liberty" then becomes the basis for some ridiculously authoritarian policies.   The government has to see all of your bank records, send police to anywhere it pleases, all being funded by your money, to "safeguard liberty", as if liberty were something other than not experiencing so much external control.  And overnight, the publicly funded and extensive security network becomes the hallmark of liberty....and they will liberate the hell out of you if you threaten Liberty.

Type 2 authoritarian libertarians (in my theory, I'm just making up these types) also tend to be the ones who want to shut down unpopular churches, silence critics of social reforms, and use ridicule and "common sense/21st century science" to marginalize and eliminate the voices in society that don't fit with their scheme of liberty.  Religious groups should not vote or engage in politics, because they might vote their values and thereby restrict liberty. 

Redefining what liberty ought to include, and mistaking "liberty" for some magical being that exists out there in the universe apart from what we do in society, is the source of these apparently contradictory political beliefs. 

That's my take, anyway, and I'd be interested to hear some other opinions on the trend.

[Perd Hapley]

and they will liberate the hell out of you if you threaten Liberty.

   

Anybody remember this old chestnut?  "I'd services the h**l out of you."

[MicroBalrog]

You know, it'd be easy for me as a libertarian to say that this election shows that the Republicans must abandon the religious right and flock to the banner of 'true conservatism', which supposedly is some form of watered-down libertarianism. However, I am of the opinion that this is nonsense.

In my view, the conservatives must realize, once and for all, that whatever the conservative view is of what society should be like – what we have right now is not it.

If you are a member of the semi-mythical Religious Right, you can easily see that society around you is not what you want. The government schools promote what you view as irresponsible and immoral sexual practices, homeschooling is still frowned upon, and so forth.

If you're a gun person, you can easily see that we don’t yet have the freedom that the Founding Fathers wanted us to have. The Founders wanted us to be able to carry the arms that the average soldier carries in the field. Even if you are willing to agree to licensing and registration, it is impossible for you, under current law, to purchase an XM-8 or FN-SCAR. Period. You can't carry openly in many states, and 48 out of 50 states still require a license to carry concealed.

If you're any sort of limited government person, then clearly we don't have what you want. Government now is big. Really big.

If you're libertarian? Hahahahaha!

What we want is no longer retaining what we have. Edmund Burke and his fear of revolutionary change would be nice if society was more or less what we wanted it to be, and only a few changes were needed. But we are no longer at this point. We left this point decades ago.

We need to unite around our known common themes – free markets, individual liberty, absolute morality – and destroy the influence of the Left on our civilization.

What we require is a revolutionary movement – not one that accepts the status quo. If you accept Burkianism, then you are bound, time and time again, to nominate guys like McCain and the two Bushes.

Now, I do not mean that we must all rip our shirts off, grab our rifles, and charge at the barricades.

But we require the realization that we want an actual change. We do not want the Beast of Really Amazingly Huge Government readjusted so it wears a cross and pretends to be a conservative Beast.

I do not care if you're a libertarian, a Reaganite, or whatever. We need to unite around the fact that we are not in simple opposition to the ineptness and mismanaged of a given Administration. We must unite around the fact that we oppose the System – Washington, the media who praise it, and the corporations that slurp at its tough. We must unite around the fact that we are in moral opposition to what they do.

And we must abandon the intellectual legacy of Edmund Burke. Kill it. Kill it with fire.

Repeat after me:

Burkianism leads to moderation.
Moderation leads to compromise.
And compromise leads to suffering.

[RealGun]

Authoritarian libertarian is an oxymoron. If it is worthwhile concept, it needs a better label.

Then there is the issue of polarity. Some insist that a libertarian is an unreasonable anarchist by definition, while all variants require some sissified special label. I prefer the kind that takes it all into consideration, has some basis in guiding principle, but simply chooses what makes sense in the context in question.